Search Results

In a world beset by numerous serious national and global issues, from the deteriorating US economy to the horrific catastrophes in Ukraine and Gaza, the leadership of the United States is under heightened scrutiny from sceptics, raising concerns about the competence of the current president. Donald trump persistently criticises Joe Biden denouncing what he calls a “deadly combination of incompetence, radicalism and weakness” which, in his view, has characterised Biden’s tenure in power. This viewpoint is shared by many critics of the Biden administration. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Nephew of Former President Kennedy For some time, it appeared that the 2024 presidential election would be a rematch between Trump and Biden, akin to their contentious rivalry in 2020. Trump maintains a steady grasp on the Republican party over current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the other 9 candidates. The same goes for Joe Biden, who has only two competitors to face. A welcome addition for these presidential elections is former president's John F. Kennedy's nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr. Identifying as a hardline libertarian who promises to bring back individuality and freedom of choice to the American people, Kennedy began his campaign running as a member of the Democrat party. However, as his campaign progressed Kennedy found it difficult to align himself with the values of the neo-liberitarian democrat party and therefore decided to break ties with the party this October, instead deciding to run independently. It seems to me that Kennedy can serve as a political leader who aspires to do better and desires to vouch for the interests of the American people even if those interests conflict with the state. In terms of his professional background, Kennedy has served as an environmental lawyer, who has had a remarkable impact on various conservation efforts. For example, his pivotal role in negotiating the New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement in 1997 was a landmark achievement in the city's history, safeguarding upstate New York’s reservoir system and drastically improving New York City’s drinking water quality. His success in winning settlements against corporate giants, such as DuPont and Monsanto, for toxic dumpling and glyphosate use in weed-killer products, underlines his effectiveness in holding powerful entities accountable for environmental harm. This has potential to extend beyond environmental work as he has expanded his work into humanitarian sectors. He has spent many years in an attempt to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for abuse of power post Reagan's amendment in 1989 which made it difficult to pursue legal actions against pharmaceutical companies. In my opinion, taking significant environmental and humanitarian action has become increasingly important in today’s world, and many political leaders have failed to do so, in attempt to full fill other interests. He has conveyed the idea that God communicates with humanity through various elements, “but nowhere with such detail and grace and colour and joy as through creation”. Kennedy Jr.'s words and actions bear great resemblance to the principles and ideals of his uncle, the late President John F. Kennedy, who was renowned for his commitment to truth and the welfare of the American people. Just as his uncle's legacy shaped the course of American history, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to draw inspiration from that heritage, as he sets out to address important issues, tackle corporate influence, and advocate for a more just and equitable society. Kennedy is unapologetically outspoken about the influence of big corporations in the American Government, exposing corruption and asserting his commitment to helping Americans regain their freedom and independence through the power of the law. As a result, mainstream media has criticised many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s ideas, labelling them as conspiracies or simply lies. It is important to recognise that in a democracy, every individual has the freedom to form their own beliefs and agree or disagree with political figures like Kennedy. However, the issue of censorship and its impact on the public's ability to access diverse perspectives is particularly important. Kennedy Jr.’s resilience to corporate opposition and his ability to confront corruption can be demonstrated through all the environmental legal cases he has fought and won. The decision to run as an independent candidate is significant. He has referred to a "rising tide of discontent" in the country, echoing the sentiments of many who feel that the current political system is dominated by corporate influence, media bias and the duopoly-like rule of the two major political parties. In proposing to make a "new declaration of independence" separate from these powerful entities Kennedy addresses the central concerns of Americans in recent times regarding the state of American democracy. By running as an independent, he seems to provide hope for those who believe that it's time for a change; an opportunity for voters to break free from traditional party politics and corporate control. While public opinion on Kennedy and his ideas may vary, the importance of his candidacy and his resilience in the face of adversity cannot be denied. As a result of his controversy Kennedy Jr.’s campaign has faced some challenges. The Secretary of Homeland Security, part of the Biden Administration, has refused Kennedy Jr.’s requests for Secret Service protection twice. It seems quite concerning that Kennedy Jr. isn’t receiving secret service protection with the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the father of Kennedy Jr, still fresh in the memory of Americans. To be clear, “By law, the secret service is authorised to protect major presidential candidates within 120 days of a general presidential election”. This time hasn’t arrived yet for the 2024 elections, however this is the first time that an administration has refused requests for protection from a rival candidate. Although this decision doesn’t pose legal issues, it is concerning as RFK Jr. has faced physical threats during his campaign, and both his father and uncle were assassinated as candidate and president. This situation also reflects his hostile relationship with the current state and shows his unpopularity within government organisations. In terms of funding, it is well known that running for president of the United States entails a significant expense. The 2020 election cost an unprecedented $14 billion. Sources of finance include Super PACs, donations, and personal funding. It appears that the US democracy at present depends more on the financial support of wealthy donors and special interests, rather than promoting candidates based on their merit. Kennedy Jr. has received donations from many individuals/professionals in the health and entertainment industries. By law, an individual isn’t allowed to donate more than $3,300 to a candidate. However, he managed to raise $5 million from the US public as he has made it clear to the American people that he will not be funded by big corporations and donors, unlike other candidates. This establishes a profound level of integrity in his relationship with the American public, something which many voters have yearned for in recent years. In closing, I believe that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s embodies a hopeful voice that can bring on profound change. He stands as a unique presidential candidate, displaying courage to confront and challenge the deception and corruption of those who have hijacked the government and have exerted control over it. Hence, our shared objective should be to empower the people once more, rekindling the core principles of democracy—where governance is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

On October 26th, the day the delegates from the Palestinian militant group 'Hamas' made the seldom visit to the Kremlin, President Vladmir Putin warned in a speech that the Gaza war has potential to spread far beyond Middle Eastern Borders. The president also took the liberty to blame western powers for adding fuel to the inferno of religious antagonism. Putin's gathering on Wednesday in the Kremlin with various different Russian religious leaders of different faiths demonstrated that Putin may speaking against his own values. Putin stated, according to Kremlin transcript, "Our task today, our main task, is to stop the bloodshed and violence,” Foreign Minister Lavrov meets with Hamas delegates in Kremlin - October 26, 2023 The dangers of the Gaza war were reemphasized when President Putin stated, "Otherwise, further escalation of the crisis is fraught with grave and extremely dangerous and destructive consequences." Additionally, his subdued conviction was established when he proclaimed, "And not only for the Middle East region. It could spill over far beyond the borders of the Middle East." Furthermore, Putin stated, "For this purpose, among other things, they are trying to play on the national and religious feelings of millions of people.” The increased civil and domestic tensions in Western countries are conspicuous, specifically, the causation for the religious tensions are clear. The agenda that these countries possess are juxtaposing the religious beliefs of a significant portion of their populace. The discordance, Putin implies, will not only fuel the internal strife but also has the capability to potentially exacerbate world wide sectarianism. It is equally pertinent to point out that United Nations Security Councils' weakness is once again highlighted as they fail to respond to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, amidst an escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. On the same day of the Hamas delegations' visit, China and Russia agreed to veto a United States Resolution, both charging the Biden administration of not being genuine when proposing the humanitarian corridors in Gaza. Furthermore, the resolution also demanded a halt On Wednesday, a U.S. resolution demanding a humanitarian pause to facilitate aid access, protect civilians, and halt the supply of arms to Hamas and other militant groups in the Gaza Strip was vetoed by Russia and China. Ambassador Zhang of China said according to an official transcript of his remarks in the UN Security Council resolution conference: "If adopted, it will completely dash the prospect of the two-state solution and plunge the Palestinian and Israeli peoples into a vicious cycle of hatred and confrontation,"

Ontario’s Premier, Doug Ford publicly apologized at a news conference in Niagara Falls after he broke his promise about the Greenbelt decision. The Greenbelt of Ontario was established in 2005 to permanently safeguard agricultural and environmentally sensitive territories from urban expansion. The government of Ontario has been under enormous pressure in recent weeks with the housing crisis to open the protected Greenbelt, which has resulted in disastrous mistakes and the resignations of two ministers. Despite that, Premier Doug Ford showed transparency in his communication, admitted the damages, and effectively communicated the solutions to the public. Doug Ford Giving a Press Conference As evident in his address, Premier Doug Ford was quick to remit the matter and took responsibility by expressing his deep disappointment: “I made a promise to you that I wouldn't touch the Greenbelt. I broke that promise. And for that I'm very, very sorry” His message has a clear-cut objective - to apologies and restore trust. “Reputation is gained by what one does, not by what one says” Ford’s message shows accountability and transparency, which strengthens his arguments’ credibility and his reputation in the public’s eyes. This can be seen when Doug Ford stated, “As a first step to earn back your trust, I’ll be reversing the changes we made and won’t make any changes to the Greenbelt in the future”. He also suggested that a strategy has been put in place, as this is one of the many steps to be taken to rectify the damage. Ontario’s Premier made it clear that his audience has a voice in the matter: “I want the people of Ontario to know that I’m listening”. This is a very important step in reestablishing trust. Receiving feedback in public relations is critical in understanding the receivers’ point of view.

Elon Musk has once again caught the public’s attention after expressing his political opinion in a podcast with ‘All In’. He stated that Taiwan was an ‘integral part’ of China (Rana, 2023) even though it is an island separated from mainland China (officially known as the People’s Republic of China [PRC]), by the Taiwan Strait and has, since 1949, been ruled independently (Maizland, 2023). His inaccurate comment immediately generated harsh criticism from political leaders in both China and Taiwan. Statements like Elon Musk's amplify the risk by bringing unwelcome media attention to the issue and create even more tension between the US, China and Taiwan. Billionaire Elon Musk In Interview It is essential that spokespeople check facts and are fully informed when answering evolving political questions to ensure their statements are accurate and balanced. The Taiwanese ambassador responded to Musk’s statement by saying “Taiwan sells many products, but our freedom and democracy are not for sale” (Rana, 2023). Musk then moved on to compare Taiwan to the U.S. state of Hawaii. Such political statements can have serious repercussions. Musk’s lack of knowledge about the country’s political status angered Taiwan. The United States has for decades attempted to maintain a delicate balance between supporting Taiwan and preventing a war with China; Elon Musk risks disrupting it as his words have the power to sway markets and impact government policy. This was not the first time he has commented on the Taiwan issue, and he is often regarded as echoing the views of the Chinese Communist Party on the matter which conflicts with the political stance of the United States. As emphasized by many academics, it is important to “be a voice, not an echo”, even if that voice is neutral or silent. Spokespeople need to be thoughtful and careful about commenting on such controversial topics. Musk’s communication strategy fails to acknowledge the delicate political balance. He can be seen as a charismatic leader, which contributes to his persuasiveness, but in high-stakes political situations like these, people look past personality and focus on words and semantics.

It was a matter of less than three hours on Saturday, September 30th, 2023, for the US Government to shut down for the 11th time during the last four decades of US history. This time, the bill signed by President Biden, passed at the last minute by the House and previously approved by the Senate, gained the Government an additional forty-seven days to work and resolve issues of disagreement (stopgap bill). These issues are primarily regarding additional spending outside the approved budget that still requires Congress appropriation. It all started with the new fiscal year budget authorization of $1.59 trillion approved by President Biden and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, back in May 2023. Then, a number of disagreements amongst the House and Senate members arose about rationally allocating and appropriating funds. The matters of disagreement evolved around the following: blockage on spending of $300 million in additional aid for Kyiv against Russia, decision on defunding Justice Department - prosecuting former President Donald Trump, and the overall leaner budget that the House of Representatives wanted by cutting funding for the Internal Revenue Service by more than $1 billion. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy and his main opponent in the GOP, Representative Matt Gaetz Finally, the Republican party wanted to increase spending to $2 billion for restarting the construction of the US-Mexico border wall. McCarthy clearly disagreed with Democrats on increased funding by the White House for Ukraine, but later turned to Democrats to support the stopgap bill. McCarthy led the Democratic House to believe that he will bring a Ukraine fund bill as a separate item to vote upon the House return. One item that was agreed upon with continuing resolution was the allocation of $16 billion of Disaster Relief Fund to support prompt responses, recoveries, restorations, and critical help for communities facing natural disasters. The stopgap was signed. The Government continues its normal activities at least until November 17th. However, Kevin McCarthy‘s role didn’t last long. He was voted out of office on October 3rd, 2023.His fallout with the more conservative (MAGA) Republicans led by Matt Gaetz led to his downfall. Kevin McCarthy then later verified that he will not be running for Speaker of the House again. "I fought for what I believed in," The federal funding gaps and disagreements on appropriation of spending go way back in US history. First, in 1976, President Gerald Ford rejected funding for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. Later, in 1980 and 1981, Benjamin Civiletti, President Carter’s attorney general, issued a legal opinion that allowed for stoppage of government non-essential functions, if there was a lack of agreement on a gap in federal funding. Since then, there have been ten government shutdowns. Almost all of them started around September – October time frame, as this marks the start time of the new fiscal year for the government. Seven of the shutdowns lasted between two and six days. Three shutdowns lasted longer than a week. The first twenty-two day shutdown was a standoff between Gingrich and Clinton. It lasted from mid December of 1995 until January 6th, 1996, resulting in many delays in government services and a backlog of 200,000 passport applications to process. The second twenty-seven day long shutdown was a battle over defunding the Affordable Care Act. It ended up with President Obama signing changes to the bill, but excluding major defunding demands by Republicans. The third and the longest in US history shutdown, lasting thirty-five days, was over President Trump’s proposed plan to build a wall along the US and Mexico border. All shutdowns end with some sort of compromise but are extremely disruptive and costly for everyone. About 800,000 of federal employees are furlough, some government services are withheld or delayed, and morale of US citizens are impacted – if the government keeps on shutting down, doesn’t it become just another tool for the opposing party to get what they want given the resolution will still be reached? The clock is ticking, reaching consensus of funding the federal government expires on November 17th, 2023. Was the resolution reached on September 30th a successful one, or is the US facing another disruptive and costly Government stoppage?

Argentina, a nation familiar with economic instability, is at a crucial point once again in its fiscal history. With soaring inflation rates and the peso losing value, the idea of 'dollarisation' is gaining traction within economic circles. With the emergence of presidential frontrunner Javier Milei, Argentina may see real action in dollarisation. This will have significant economic impact on the nation, and while we are only in the beginning stages of this movement, it is pertinent to discuss what this means for Argentina in relation to the global economy . Argentina is currently grappling with what has been characterised by monetarists as borderline hyperinflation, which peaked at a staggering 115%; as a result, the peso has lost its value. Many Argentinians are turning to the US dollar as a possible solution, as the public prefers saving their money, holding assets and carrying out transactions in US dollars for increased stability. Businesses have already widely accepted the US dollar as a form of currency, especially in busy or touristic cities. Dollarisation offers the promise of stability in the face of high inflation. By adopting the US dollar as the official currency, Argentina hopes to establish a solid financial foundation, attracting foreign investments and restoring lost investor trust. This move could also enhance Argentina's ability to negotiate better trade deals and access international credit markets. This increase in consumer and producer confidence would provide much needed room for economic growth in the nation. Javier Milei, the frontrunner libertarian candidate in the upcoming Argentinian elections However, not everyone agrees with the idea of ​​an absolute shift to the US dollar. Critics are worried about what this change will mean for how Argentina manages its monetary policy. They fear that giving up control over aspects of the economy like interest rates and the circulation of money could leave Argentina struggling to control their own system. But most significantly, the loss of the central bank's power to set the interest rate is a major concern, as it is a critical tool for managing economic growth and stability for any government and giving this up could make it difficult for Argentina to deal with domestic crises. Additionally, this shift could affect low income earners and local businesses negatively. The US dollar typically has a higher value compared to the Argentine peso. When everyday goods and services are priced in dollars, it can become more costly for individuals earning their wages in pesos. This can particularly burden those with lower incomes as the exchange between dollars and pesos uncontrollably fluctuates. Thus while dollarisation has potential benefits, there are legitimate concerns about the potential downsides that need to be considered to certain demographics of the economy. 3000 pesos paid for some fruit in a local Argentine market At the forefront of this debate is Javier Milei, a libertarian radical making changes to Argentina's political landscape. His vision advocates for a complete remodel of the current economic framework, including the abandonment of the central bank, privatisation of state- run companies, and notably, the adoption of the US dollar. His libertarian beliefs, emphasising free-market principles, limited government intervention, and a strong focus on individual liberties, directly influence what plans he has for Argentina as he envisions a future where the nation operates on the principles of economic prosperity. Milei's economic ideas include radical changes that could drastically shift Argentina's economic course. His proposed reforms, if implemented, aim to lead Argentina toward dollarisation. Milei earned 30 percent of the vote in the country’s compulsory open primaries and won over 16 of Argentina’s 24 provinces; he is currently looking like the favourite to win. If Milei wins the elections and Argentina supports dollarisation, the potential for price stability and increased investment could pull Argentina out of its current economic crisis. Argentina stands at a critical juncture, facing decisions that could reshape its economy. The potential shift towards dollarisation, led by Javier Milei, offers the promise of stability and growth. Yet, it also raises valid concerns regarding losing control over monetary policy. The outcome of the upcoming elections will critically determine Argentina's future. It is also important to note that in the globalised world we live in, this move towards dollarisation could set a precedent for other nations facing economic volatility. The example set by Argentina might promote similar decisions to countries dealing with inflation and struggling to stabilise their local currencies. Thus, it is likely that in the future we could see a shift towards greater dollarisation. Credits to photo: www.correiobraziliense.com.br Credits to statistics for both the polls and inflation rates: www.reuters.com

The land of milk and honey has once again found itself embroiled in a bloody conflict. In response to a large-scale coordinated assault and infiltration by Hamas-aligned terrorists, the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has formally declared a state of war and begun the mobilization of its reserves. After an estimated 1000 Hamas-affiliated terrorists breached the Gaza security enclosure early Saturday seeking to exploit the holiday of Sukkot, they began attacking nearby Israeli communities and military bases, taking hostages and killing civilians in their path. So far, the Israeli government’s attempts to repel the militants have been met with moderate success, with many targets in Gaza being struck by airstrikes in conjunction with ground forces reportedly pushing back the terrorists and liberating small quantities of hostages such as those in the town of Ofakim. However, the military response was, as a result of the completely unexpected and unprecedented nature of the attack, still not enough to fully secure the area in the hours immediately following the incursion. This resulted in the capture of Israeli, Nepali, and potentially even American hostages and the slaughter of over 260 innocent civilians at the Supernova music festival. In addition to this, they have also gained control of Israeli military vehicles and weapons. At of the time of writing [10/8/23 19:23 GMT], the casualties have climbed far higher than expected, with over 700 Israelis and 400 Palestinians confirmed dead and an estimated 2,000 more injured - among the dead are many foreign citizens, including 9 Americans and 10 Nepalis. The fighting still shows no sign of dying down and the casualty count will likely continue to rise, though thankfully, at a lower rate than before as the front lines stabilize with increased troop presence and foreign aid arriving from the United States, who, in addition to touting the special bond between America and Israel, is also intervening to protect the many American citizens in the area, including Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). A building crippled by missile fire in Israel late last night However, the United States is not the only country to have issued supportive statements to Israel, as the French, British, Indian, and countless other nations have declared support for the Israeli government in this conflict and have matched the efforts in military and humanitarian aid of the United States. Iran, Qatar, and South Africa meanwhile, have issued statements in favour of the terrorist forces while many other nations call for an end to the cycle of violence, blaming both sides. As a result of the positions espoused by the Iranian government, they too have been criticized by Western powers and have re-entered the limelight as an international pariah. In Israel, many analysts have likened the Sukkot Attacks to 9/11 as a result of their vast scale, unforeseen nature, and profound impact on the political landscape. In fact, just as the United States experienced a wave of national favour and anti-terrorist sentiment following the events of 2001, the Israeli populace is, as has been stated by many prominent political analysts, highly likely to come together and demand significant change as retribution. Already, there have been calls for a Unity Government, including all political parties, with Israeli President Isaac Herzog stating, “Let us keep this spirit of heroism and this togetherness. It is our most powerful weapon”, indicating potential Likud support for the proposal, which has already been warmly received by the Yisrael Beyteynu and Yesh Atid parties. Israeli missile fire on Palestinian homes in the Gaza strip The proposed unity government would, in response to the aforementioned public calls for retaliation, continue the war against Islamic terror groups until they can achieve a direct victory in ridding Gaza, Judea, and Samaria of the conflicts that have for so long plagued them. As such, it is highly unlikely that a ceasefire similar in nature to those brought forward in the last five conflicts will be in any way accepted by the Israeli government or public, thus meaning that a full-scale invasion and re-occupation of Gaza and other Palestinian-controlled territories is presumably highly likely. However, analysis is but mere speculation and only time can tell what will truly happen. So, until the details are laid bare, all that can be done by those of us not able to directly provide aid is express support and wholeheartedly pray for all those caught up in both sides of the conflict.

PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński (C) On the 15th October, Europe will be watching as Poland opens the ballots for their 2023 electoral vote. This election has been deemed as the “most important election since 1989 and the fall of communism” by Andrzej Duda, the current president, as tensions rise between parties due to a narrowing in the political spectrum. Many decisions on topics such as migration, aid to Ukraine and abortion rights will be dictated by the outcome of this general election. The polish electoral system is one based on 460 seats within the Sejm, with each seat being a candidate from a party in a constituency. The candidate with the highest aggregate votes in the constituency is then allocated the seat. At least 35% of candidates in the Sejm must be women and the same goes for men. Individual parties must win at least 5% of the national vote to earn a seat in parliament, while coalitions must win 8%. The Law and Justice party (PiS), which is lead by Jarosław Kaczyński, will be looking to regain their third term as a majority in the Sejm (lower house of parliament). However, simultaneously their grasp of power is weakening as the Centrist Civic Coalition (KO) - lead by Donald Tusk- gains political support of the middle classes with their centrist-right ideology and liberal economic values. While they do have growing support, Tusk wasn't able to form coalitions with 'The Third Way' and 'The Left', leaving a large margin of voters out of his reach. PiS’s main aims are to take more steps into asserting conservative values into public life by making new additions to school curriculum, restoring the economy from double digit inflation, upping pension payments, cutting petrol prices and carrying on to fight the anti-immigration front. Tusk has denounced this as being xenophobic while critics state a PiS win would drag Poland further from democratic standards. On the other hand, KO’s aims are to reassert women’s rights for abortion - which was put under a near ban by PiS - to expand civil partnerships for same-sex couples and to capitalise on a recent corruption scandal involving the sale of Schengen-zone visas. KO parties agree to undo PiS changes to the media to ensure their independence and constitutional rights. Last month, the current ruling party (PiS) have stopped sending weapons to Ukraine. This was done due to the party shifting focus to modernizing and expanding its own weapon supplies due to a deficit created by sending aid to Ukraine. Until last month, Poland was a staunch Ukraine supporter; sending over $3 billion in aid since the invasion. As Poland intends to cease importing grain in order to reduce surpluses and boost the selling price for domestic farmers, who are being displaced by the low-cost imported commodity, trading relations with Ukraine have weakened, which has also contributed to this cancellation of armaments. The PiS have large support from the farming and rural communities, meaning it is in their best interest to keep prices of grain high in order to profit satisfice and maintain relations. This isolationist policy has been viewed negatively by the EU and Ukraine have labelled it as a form of “hypocrisy” which contradicts bilateral trade agreements. However, the PiS also claim that the polish people have growing “Ukrainian fatigue” due to over 1m refugees residing in Poland and the constant demand for more from Zelensky. The current president of Poland, Andrzej Duda, stands firm with his opinion and has described Ukraine as “a drowning person clinging to anything available”. Strikes by the Polish farmers regarding the prices of grain in Poland Other parties such as the Confederation Liberty and Independence party (Konfederacja) are gaining power among the polish people -mainly young men- with their nationalist, far-right ideology. The Konfederacja are led by a populist figurehead, Sławomir Mentzen who gained a following for his far-right views online. Their main aims are for net-zero migration and to remove aid for Ukrainian refugees. This would be a problem for the EU as the far-right party will oppose all migration into the country- which has become a critical variable within Poland for the upcoming election. On top of voting in the general election, Poles will be given four questions to vote on in a referendum to encourage more of its electorate to participate. All four questions have been written by PiS and have the intent for all votes to answer no. The questions are as follows: - Should State companies should be privatised? - Should the retirement age should be increased? - Should the fence with Belarus be dismantled? - Should Poland accept more immigrants from the EU? PiS opposes all four of the questions and opposing parties argue that this will create a bias outcome as they believe the current ruling party are trying to undemocratically influence the election by swaying voters views. After a virulent campaign filled with stabs at an “un-Polish” Tusk, PiS and its allies are ahead on the polls with a projected 36%, leaving them with a majority in the Sejm. This could be against EU interest as claims say the party plan to remove Poland from the union. In contrast Tusk promises the 'remain' of Poland within the EU and the unblocking of EU funds immediately from the COVID-19 relief aid.

Three Western states present to the nation microcosms of larger battles within the Republican & Democratic parties–reckonings in each of these parties shall augur new possibilities regarding the tides of the future. Adam Schiff, frontrunner for democrats in 2024 primaries. In California, with a Democrat almost guaranteed to win the seat, the state’s top-two open primary pits - 78 year old Barbara Lee, a firebrand progressive with a three decade long tenure who gained notoriety as the lone vote against military action in Afghanistan following 9/11, against two rising Democratic stars: Adam Schiff, a former manager of the first Trump impeachment who previously failed in a bid to be appointed California Attorney General after outcry from a myriad of leader’s on the party’s left, and Katie Porter, a protégé of Elizabeth Warren. Lee represents the old progressive wing of the Democratic Party, those embodied by Bernie Sanders & younger figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and seeped in a long tradition of rivalry with party leadership. In contrast with this, Porter stands as a representative of a less populist brand of progressivism. A victory for Adam Schiff, however, would represent a renewed victory for the party establishment that organized the primary victories of Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden, and long held the seat for Dianne Feinstein against progressive challengers such as Kevin De Leon. Kyrsten Sinema, democratic candidate for Arizona's seat in senate. December 2022 saw Kyrsten Sinema, long known as a doyen of the Senate’s most conservative Democratic wing announce her switch to service as an independent. Although remaining in the Democratic Senate caucus and thus, for all intents & purposes, a Democrat by Senate standards, Sinema has made clear her intention to pursue re-election as an independent, most likely to avoid a likely primary challenge from Representative Reuben Gallego, who is already the presumptive Democratic nominee for the seat. On the Republican side of the aisle, the handful of Republicans considering a run include Kari Lake and Blake Masters, both of whom lost state-wide elections in 2022 upon hard-line pro-Trump platforms. With millions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the organization NoLabels as it seeks ballot access in an attempt to run a centrist third party ticket that polling indicates could draw a fifth of American voters in 2024, Sinema’s candidacy could transform the Arizona race into a microcosm of the presidential election, and galvanize the dedicated center nationally, as already seen in an endorsement by Republican moderate Lisa Murkowski, who herself fended off a significant intra-party challenge in 2022 with the aid of Democratic voters. Sinema’s independent candidacy, polling indicates, would have a nearly equal draw upon Republican & Democratic voters, preserving the nature of the race as among the nation’s most competitive for 2024. However, unless a more moderate Republican is able to prevail in the party’s primary, probability seems to favour Gallego, a Marine veteran reminiscent of Porter, as a member of the party’s establishment progressive wing who has successfully united an erstwhile divided party around him. However, it is the Republican primary that shall have wider implications. A victory by either Lake, Masters, or even Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, would reinforce the conversion of the Arizona Republican Party, once heralded as a national bastion for a brand of soft conservatism consistently able to dominate state elections, is transforming into an increasingly irrelevant party subservient to election denial & the cult of Trumpism, pushing Arizona further towards the Democratic column. Utah's leading senate candidate, Republican hardliner, Trent Staggs Finally, Utah presents to many a near final bastion of moderate Republicanism, yet the defeat of centrist Republican Becky Edwards in the primary for a special Congressional election this September, despite leading polling by up to twenty points in the lead up to election day, bodes as ominously for the party’s centre as the retirement of Mitt Romney. Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs has emerged as the race’s hardliner MAGA candidate, while the reticent party establishment, which rallied around Ron DeSantis earlier this year, has similarly flocked to the candidacy of Utah Speaker of the House Brad Wilson. Staggs, whose political base lies in the state’s Northern suburbs, may find himself out-Trumped if Tim Ballard, a controversial anti-trafficking activist whose exaggerated claims & allegations of sexual harassment, enters the race, which could secure a victory for Wilson. However, glaringly, none have stepped forth to inherit Romney’s mantle as the leader of genuine anti-Trump Republicans in the state, and more broadly, the nation. Regardless of whether Trump is able to prevail in the 2024 elections, the success of his acolytes in former bastions of resistance testifies to the wider democratic backsliding his movement has ushered in–and raises alarms about the realism of a bipartisan coalition to restore democratic norms.

Ghana, formerly praised as an economic success story in Africa, is currently dealing with a serious financial crisis that has sparked widespread protests in the capital city of Accra. Following a startling loss of almost 60 billion Ghanaian cedis ($5.2 billion) during the 2022 fiscal year, the protestors are calling for the resignation of the Bank of Ghana governor and his two deputies. The #OccupyBoG demonstrations, which were organized by the opposition, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), have brought attention to a number of important concerns. The opposition claims that the central bank needlessly printed money to lend to the government, resulting in currency depreciation and soaring inflation. Additionally, they accuse the bank for extravagant spending including a $250 million new office building and over $762,000 in domestic and international travel. The bank's misuse of resources and inefficient investment undermines trust in Ghana's financial system, despite the fact that it is not a commercial organization. The governor of the central bank, Dr. Ernest Addison, has come under criticism for suspected carelessness and poor administration, and some experts estimate it would take more than 45 years to recoup from this historic loss. However, the bank disputes claims of poor management, attributing the losses to variations in the currency rate and the default of loans made to state organizations. The issue has also gotten worse since the government didn't pay back a $700 million loan it took out from the bank. Ghana is now experiencing its greatest economic crisis in decades, which is exemplified by a record-breaking 54% inflation rate that is still above 40%. By September 2022, the country's overall debt had increased to $55 billion, leading the administration to request a $3 billion rescue from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In order to maintain sustainable economic management, this aid was provided subject to strict criteria, most of which centered on lowering debt interest payments. To achieve this, Ghana's government initiated debt restructuring efforts by renegotiating loan terms with creditors. However, some creditors refused to participate. In August, the Bank of Ghana revealed that the government could not meet the IMF's requirements and would not repay half of the $700 million borrowed from the bank. Instead, the funds would be redirected towards debt restructuring. This crisis has consequences that go beyond financial figures. A World Bank report estimates that 850,000 Ghanaians have fallen into poverty due to high inflation, impacting their purchasing power and daily lives. Furthermore, the central bank is currently under IMF and governmental investigation, which may limit the scope of any future bailouts.

Today’s society, economy, and even politics evolve around transparency, diversity, acceptance, and equality. Nowadays, spoken and written English widely uses various pronouns; not necessary in accordance with the guidance and principles that we all learned in grammar school. The newly defined pronouns seemed to be popular and accepted by the society. But is society truly accepting the change? Well, that is what Anheuser-Busch, the one of the largest beer manufacturers in the US, assumed. Based on their market research and marketing assumptions, the company with Bud Light beer, being number one for the past 20 years, back in April 2023 decided to print a face of transgender influencer on their label can and send it to her hoping to gain the LGBTQ+ members to try the beer. The influencer, having a sizable count of followers, with pride posted the video on her Instagram. Dylan Mulvaney showcasing the Beer in her Instagram story The market response was as expected, instantaneous, however instead of high sales and respective profits, the sales plunged. The response from a well-known and respective American singer and songwriter, Kid Rock, shooting a can of the beer set the tone. Many other artists followed, asking for the specific beer to be removed from the bars and their tour rides. Many white-collar and blue-collar Americans started boycotting the company’s message and stopped buying this beer. Anheuser-Busch quickly realized the backlash and responded with “damage control” actions. Two of the top executives took a “leave of absence,” the company, just recently, hired a new ambassador, Whoopi Goldberg. All of it to revive plunging sales. The financial impact of the transgender marketing campaign not only costed the Bud Light to lose its prime position, that was held strongly for 20 years to a Mexican brand, but the company sales in the US started showing alarming trends. The January-March sales in North America, prior to the campaign, were 1% worse than the same period of 2022. However, after the infamous campaign, the sales in North America for April-June 2023 dropped by 14% as compared to Quarter 2 of 2022; for the six months of 2023 (January-June) the sales for North America were worse by 8% than sales in 2022 for the same period. One can say for sure; it was one costly can of beer. Anheuser-Busch was not the only company that experienced a backslash from the LGBTQ+ campaign. Target, the American retail corporation that operates general merchandise retail stores in all 50 states, faced a significant reduction in sales and profits that were a result of general reaction to similar marketing campaigns. The retailer responded to controversies between shoppers and store works by pulling the Pride merchandise off the shelves. The company during the second quarter earnings release announced 5% sales decline. However, it was not clear if all of it was a result of LGBTQ+ backlash. The massive controversies reached our favorite Caramel Macchiato and Frappuccino coffeehouse, Starbucks. The Seattle, WA headquarters coffeehouse responded to market reaction to Bud Light’s marketing campaign retaliation by pulling down Pride decors and flags. This time the backlash came from LGBTQ+ members. Workers from over 150 Starbucks coffeehouses were planning on going on strike to demand better pays and freedom with Pride decorations. The US society remains very divided, the companies are weighing opportunities that will optimize their financial performances, not always with an accurate assessment, and the state legislatures are just waiting for the right chance to propose bills regarding LGBTQ+ individuals.

Poland has been one of Ukraine's strongest supporters during the war, supplying it with hundreds of tanks and fighter jets. It has also provided military training to Ukrainian servicemen, while also serving as a major transit hub for weapons from other Western nations. In addition to military support, Poland is hosting over 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees and, according to the country's envoy to the UN, is spending about 1.5% of its GDP on humanitarian aid. However, ahead of Poland's elections, the conservative government of the Law and Justice Party, aiming to maintain its power, has taken a U-turn on its political and military accord with Ukraine. The reason behind this turnaround is the EU's ruling to lift the ban on Ukrainian grain imports which Poland along with Slovakia and Hungary have rejected as they argue that the lowered prices would hurt local markets and farmers. In response, President Zelensky appealed to the WTO filing a lawsuit and even accused them of putting on a political theater favoring Russia. Poland's PM, Mateusz Morawiecki, replied by telling Mr. Zelensky never to insult Poles again. "I... want to tell Mr. Zelensky never to insult Poles again, as he did recently during his speech at the UN" Further adding... “We are no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons” Polish PM addresses Zelensky's comments In Poland, the main reason for the U-turn was PiS's need to consolidate support among rural voters and also to attract supporters from the far-right Confederation Party, many of whom were skeptical of helping Ukraine. The Party maintaining its conservative and nationalist politics did not base its move solely on agricultural means, but also on the base of the reinforcement of its national army.