Monday, November 14, 2022

Bank of Canada governor Macklem has 'declared class war on working people': Unifor president

Peter Zimonjic, Catherine Cullen -

The head of the largest private-sector union in Canada said Monday that Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem is waging a "class war" on working people and it's time to stop hiking interest rates.



Unifor National President Lana Payne speaks during a news conference on Parliament Hill on Nov. 14, 2022 in Ottawa.© The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

"Rather than developing a tailored response intended to slow profits, stop profiteering, fix supply chain bottlenecks and help workers keep up, policy makers have taken to blaming workers instead — including the governor of the Bank of Canada, who has basically declared class war on working people in this country," said Unifor president Lana Payne.

Unifor represents more than 300,000 employees.

Payne said shareholders and corporate executives are reaping "obscene benefits in the form of higher dividends, share repurchases and bonuses" while workers struggle with high inflation.

"The medicine that the Bank has, with respect to inflation, is causing a lot of pain out there," Payne said.

"The fact of the matter is that the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates faster than many other countries in the world. We should ask ourselves, is it actually doing what he says it needs to do?"

Canada's benchmark interest rate currently stands at 3.75 per cent. In the United States it's 4 per cent, while it's 3 per cent in the U.K. and 2 per cent in the European Union.

Payne the Bank of Canada is persisting with its plan to raise interest rates even as inflation drops

"This seems like a lot of needless pain on working people right now in Canada," Payne said, adding that interest rates "are up high enough now. We need to slow this down."

In a recent interview with CBC News, Macklem said that while rate hikes are making life harder for many Canadians, they're necessary.

"We don't want to make this more difficult than it has to be," he told the CBC's Peter Armstrong. "But at the same time, if we don't do enough, if we're half-hearted, Canadians are going to have to continue to endure the high inflation that is harming them every day."

Low unemployment and inflation


Analysts say that if the bank pauses too soon while inflation is still rising, it will have to take even more aggressive measures down the road. On the other hand, if it overshoots and keeps hiking rates after inflation starts coming down in a sustainable way, many Canadians will suffer needlessly.

While Payne said she thinks the Bank should hold off further rate hikes, Macklem disagrees.

"We do think that there is a need for further increases, but we are getting closer to the end of this tightening cycle. I can't tell you exactly what that is," he told Armstrong. "We're not there yet. But we are getting closer."

Payne also criticized Macklem for comments he made last week to the Public Policy Forum in Toronto, when he said that the current low unemployment rate is not sustainable.

"Blaming workers for having a job and actually demanding decent wages, benefits and working conditions is simply unacceptable. We need an economy that works for everyone, not an economy that delivers only for the few," she said.

Macklem said last week that while a record-low unemployment rate means more people are working, it also means employers struggle more to fill positions.

"The tightness in the labour market is a symptom of the general imbalance between demand and supply that is fuelling inflation and hurting all Canadians," he said, adding that "relieving the pressure in the labour market will contribute to restoring price stability."


BOURGEOIS ECONOMICS OFF OUR BACKS

Bank of Canada: Job losses will rise but won't reach levels seen in past economic downturns

Inflation in Canada is being impacted by unsustainable low unemployment, according to Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem.

As a potential recession looms, unemployment will rise, but Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem says job losses won't fall to levels seen in past economic downturns.

Canada's job market has remained strong despite growing forecasts that a slowdown is on the horizon. 

"We don’t expect a large increase in unemployment in the way we’ve seen in past recessions," Macklem said before students and researchers at Toronto Metropolitan University Thursday. "We’re not expecting high unemployment by historical standards."

The governor said the country's current low unemployment rate is not sustainable and is contributing to decades-high inflation.


He said the Canadian labour market needs to be rebalanced to stabilize inflation. 

The country's unemployment rate held steady at 5.2 per cent last month as the Canadian economy surprised forecasters by adding more than 100,000 jobs. The strong job numbers came after four months of losses or little growth in employment. 


Macklem said businesses struggling to find workers can’t keep up with demand for goods and services in the economy.

“The tightness in the labour market is a symptom of the general imbalance between demand and supply that is fueling inflation and hurting all Canadians,” he said.

That imbalance, he said, is in part due to an aging population increasing retirement levels as well as low immigration during the pandemic. 

To get demand and supply back in line with each other, Macklem said a slowdown is necessary. 

"So what does that mean for Canadian workers? Well, it’s clear that the adjustment is not painless," he said. 

In reaction to Statistics Canada's recent strong job report, Macklem said it's not unusual to see fluctuations in the monthly job numbers."

"What I take away from the last several months is we continue to have an economy that is in excess demand."

In his speech, the governor said policies that increase the number of available workers would help ease inflation, noting immigration is one of them.

Other polices such as the expansion of universal childcare will help increase the proportion of women in the workforce, he said, but noted it will take time.

The governor, however, stressed that these policies are not substitutes for using interest rates to clamp down on high inflation.

“New workers will have new incomes, and that will add to spending in the economy,” Macklem said. “That’s why increasing supply, while valuable, is not a substitute for using monetary policy.”


Last month, the Bank of Canada raised its key interest rate for a sixth consecutive time this year. The central bank has signalled it's drawing closer to the end of what's been one of the fastest rate hike cycles in its history.

Economists expect one or two more interest rate hikes are still to come.

The rate hikes are in response to inflation reaching the highest level seen in nearly four decades. In September, the inflation rate was 6.9 per cent, well above the central bank’s two per cent target. It has been steadily declining since reaching a high of 8.1 per cent in June.

Statistics Canada is expected to publish its latest consumer price index report on Wednesday, shedding light on how inflation evolved in October. 

Macklem said the central bank will be paying attention to core measures of inflation in particular, which tend to be less volatile than the headline number.




Tiff Macklem: Read his remarks on

Canada's labour market


Inflation in Canada is being impacted by unsustainable

low unemployment, according to Bank of Canada

Governor Tiff Macklem.

Macklem made the remarks during a speech before the Public Policy Forum in Toronto on Thursday.

“The tightness in the labour market is a symptom of the general imbalance between demand and supply that is fuelling inflation and hurting all Canadians,” he said.

Canada added 108,000 jobs in October, while unemployment remained steady at 5.2 per cent.

You can read Macklem's full remarks below.


Good morning. It’s great to be back in Toronto to discuss an issue that matters to everyone—the Canadian labour market. I’m particularly pleased to be on a university campus for a speech that explores the future of workers and jobs. And I want to thank the Public Policy Forum for inviting me to engage with students, researchers and thought leaders on this important issue.

My Governing Council colleagues and I meet with stakeholders of all kinds—business leaders and community groups, unions and students. And everywhere we go, we get many of the same questions. First, people ask about inflation and interest rates. Controlling inflation is our top priority, and I’ll get into that today. Everyone also wants to talk about jobs and the labour market, and three questions regularly come up: Why can’t businesses find enough workers? Are we going into a recession, and does that mean a big rise in the unemployment rate? And what is the Bank of Canada’s role in supporting maximum sustainable employment?

So today I want to address these questions. I will tackle them in three parts. First, I want to outline how inflation and the labour market are linked. I’ll explain that returning to low and stable inflation is the best way to achieve maximum sustainable employment. Our mandate is explicit about that. Second, I want to highlight how the Canadian labour market was hit by COVID-19, how it recovered and what we expect in the coming months. Finally, I want to discuss structural changes in the labour market, such as the aging of the population, that we’d be grappling with even if the pandemic hadn’t happened. I will discuss what we are watching and what Canadian governments and businesses can do to help grow the supply of labour.

OUR MANDATE

Since the Bank was founded, its mandate has been to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada. As we said when we renewed our monetary policy framework last December, the Government of Canada and the Bank believe that the best contribution monetary policy can make to the well-being of Canadians is to deliver price stability. This is formalized with an inflation target, which is the 2% midpoint of a 1% to 3% inflation-control range.

The Government and the Bank also agree that monetary policy should continue to support maximum sustainable employment. We recognize that maximum sustainable employment is not directly measurable and is determined largely by non-monetary factors that can change through time. This reflects the reality that maximum sustainable employment is more of a concept than a number. In practice, knowing when we’ve reached it is difficult because we have to infer where it is, and labour market indicators give us clear signals only when we are well above or below it.

Finally, well-anchored inflation expectations are critical to both price stability and maximum sustainable employment. That’s why the Government and the Bank agree that the primary objective of monetary policy is to maintain low, stable inflation over time.1 What I want to stress here is that maximum sustainable employment and inflation close to the 2% target go hand in hand. If employment is well below its maximum sustainable level, the economy is missing jobs and incomes, and spending will be below the economy’s productive capacity. This puts downward pressure on inflation, pushing it below the target. That’s what happened early in the pandemic. If the economy is operating above maximum sustainable employment, businesses won’t be able to find enough workers to keep up with demand, putting upward pressure on prices and pushing inflation above the target. That’s where we are today.

At almost 7%, inflation is well above our 2% target. Inflation in Canada partly reflects global factors—sharply higher prices for many commodities and internationally traded goods. But much of the inflation we are experiencing reflects domestic factors—namely, excess demand in the Canadian economy. Our economy is overheated. Job vacancies are elevated, and businesses are reporting widespread labour shortages. Over the last six months, wage growth has increased and broadened across the economy. The unemployment rate in June hit a record low—and while that seems like a good thing, it is not sustainable. The tightness in the labour market is a symptom of the general imbalance between demand and supply that is fuelling inflation and hurting all Canadians.

Since March, we have been raising our policy interest rate to help bring inflation back to our target. Higher interest rates will work to slow spending and labour demand in the economy, and over time, this will relieve domestic inflationary pressures.

We’re trying to balance the risks of over- and under-tightening monetary policy. If we don’t raise interest rates enough, Canadians will continue to endure high inflation, and high inflation will become entrenched, requiring much higher interest rates and a sharper slowing in the economy to restore price stability. If we raise interest rates too much, the economy will slow more than it needs to, unemployment will rise considerably, and inflation will undershoot our target. Getting the balance just right is no easy task, and I want to explain what we’ll be watching in the labour market as we make monetary policy decisions in the months ahead.

That starts with a look at the upheaval of the pandemic and what Canadian workers have been through over the last two and a half years.


Deep recession, rapid recovery and excess demand

The recent history of the labour market can be broken into three distinct phases: pandemic-related economic shutdowns, the recovery that came with re-opening, and the current environment of excess demand. Let me address each of these in turn.

THE PANDEMIC SHOCK

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the biggest global downturn since the Great Depression. Much of the economy shut down to contain the spread of the virus, and millions of people lost their jobs. In Canada, we plunged into the deepest recession on record, and the effects were devastating. Roughly 3 million people who were employed before the pandemic were out of work by April 2020. And another 2.5 million were working less than half of their usual hours. The shock hit workplaces from coast to coast to coast.

But it hit very unequally. Work that required close contact with people—mainly in the services sector—was shut down. That disproportionately affected youth, women and low-wage workers. The closure of schools and daycares also hit women with young children harder, and they experienced a greater decline in their hours worked.

Never before has so much of the economy been shut down so suddenly and for so long. We were very concerned that it would result in scarring. In other words, we worried that damage to the incomes and careers of a whole segment of the population, particularly women, youth and immigrants, would be permanent.

THE RECOVERY

That brings me to the second phase: the fastest recovery ever. Do you remember that first year of the pandemic? We couldn’t travel abroad or even much within Canada, so we stayed home. We renovated our homes to accommodate working and studying remotely, and we bought many goods to replace the fun we’d normally get from the services sector.

Just four months after the employment lows of April, nearly two-thirds of the job losses were recouped (Chart 1). What was behind the rapid bounce back? It was largely because the recession came from an unprecedented event—the pandemic—and not from imbalances or structural problems in the economy. That meant that when the economy reopened, employment could be restored quickly. We expected a rapid rebound in employment with reopening, but we were concerned that too many people would be left behind. Fortunately, the scarring we were worried about wasn’t as pervasive as we had feared because employment recovered quickly.

The synchronous policy response of governments and central banks around the world played a big role in supporting the recovery. In Canada, fiscal policies were designed to help keep workers attached to their employers and businesses afloat even with little money coming in.2 That limited damage to the labour market. Monetary policy actions complemented these fiscal policies. We cut policy interest rates and introduced quantitative easing to reduce borrowing costs, which supported spending and helped restore employment.

The reopening of schools and daycares helped too. As schools returned to in-class teaching, mothers went back to work. This reduced the uneven impact of the pandemic, but it did not eliminate it.3

As the vaccination rate increased and the economy reopened, those employed in goods-producing industries returned to work sooner than those engaged in hard-to-distance services.4 And sectors where remote work is effective—such as professional services, public administration and finance, and insurance and real estate—experienced employment well above their pre-pandemic levels, while employment in services sectors such as hotels and restaurants remained much below.

Overall, this rapid pace of the recovery is unheard of, far faster than in past recessions.

EXCESS DEMAND

That brings me to 2022 and our current labour market. We are in excess demand, where the economy’s need for labour is outpacing its ability to supply it. At the end of last year, it was not obvious that the labour market would rapidly overheat in 2022. The Omicron variant was spreading, and COVID-19 case numbers were once again rising. But looking through the volatility in the labour market caused by waves of the pandemic, we can now see a clear trend of an increasingly tight labour market in 2022. Employment growth remained strong, reports of labour shortages increased, and wage growth picked up.

To meet rising demand, employers reached more deeply into the labour market, and they found some new workers. Hiring of immigrants—especially recent immigrants—increased, easing employment gaps between these workers and Canadian-born prime-age workers.5 Pandemic innovation and strong labour markets also brought more flexibility to some jobs, partly due to digitalization accelerated by the pandemic. Employers could more easily accommodate workers in remote locations or those who needed flexible hours. Long-term unemployment, which rose sharply during the pandemic, returned to its pre-pandemic levels.

We began raising our policy interest rate in March to cool this overheated economy, but the momentum in the labour market held. Employment gains continued, and labour shortages intensified through the spring. The unemployment rate reached a record low 4.9% in June. Job vacancies exceeded one million in the second quarter—a new record. Rising vacancies with low unemployment were clear signs that the economy was out of balance, with demand running ahead of supply.

In recent months, we’ve seen initial signs that these exceptionally tight labour market conditions have started to ease. Since the spring, employment has levelled off, and the unemployment rate has crept up a little, to 5.2%. Wage growth has risen but now looks to be plateauing. Job vacancies have started to decline. Their softening has been evident in sectors that are more sensitive to interest rates, such as manufacturing and construction (Chart 2).

Looking ahead to balance

As we look ahead, there are two elements to achieving a better-balanced labour market: demand and supply. Demand for labour needs to moderate so supply can catch up. And the more the labour supply grows over time, the less slowing is needed in labour demand to restore and maintain price stability.

Labour demand

The first part—slowing demand—is what we influence with interest rate increases. Generally, low unemployment and high demand for workers benefit Canada’s economy. Good jobs are the best way to reduce inequality and ensure that Canadians have the income they need to meet the needs of their families. But right now, we need the economy to slow down. With more modest spending growth, the demand for labour by businesses will ease, vacancies will decline, and the labour market will come into better balance. This will relieve price pressures.

Increasingly, we hear concerns that Europe, the United States and even Canada are heading for a recession. In our Business Outlook Survey released a few weeks ago, a majority of Canadian firms surveyed said a recession is likely in the next 12 months. As we said in our October Monetary Policy Report, we expect growth to stall in the next few quarters—in other words, growth will be close to zero. That means two or three quarters of slightly negative growth are just as likely as two or three quarters of slightly positive growth. That’s not a severe recession, but it is a significant slowing of the economy.

Slower economic growth will likely lead to higher unemployment. We know that job losses have a human cost. But because the labour market is so hot and we have an exceptionally high number of vacant jobs, there is scope to cool the labour market without causing the kind of large surge in unemployment that we have typically experienced in recessions.

As we use higher interest rates to cool inflation, we’ll be watching very closely for signs that the economy and the labour market are responding. One way to explore the needed adjustment in our labour market is through the lens of what economists call the Beveridge curve. This curve depicts the typically inverse relationship between job vacancies and unemployment (Chart 3).

As job vacancies decline, unemployment usually goes up. But by how much? That depends on where the labour market is along the curve. Generally speaking, when job vacancies are high, as they are now, a decline in vacancies does not lead to as big an increase in unemployment as it does when job vacancies are low to begin with. Staff analysis of Canada’s Beveridge curve suggests that the unemployment rate will rise somewhat if the job vacancy rate returns to more normal levels. But it would not be high unemployment by historical standards.

So what does that mean for Canadian workers? Well, it’s clear that the adjustment is not painless. Lower vacancies mean it could take longer to find a job, and some businesses will find that with less demand for their products, they don’t have enough work for all their workers. But relieving the pressure in the labour market will contribute to restoring price stability.

We’ll be watching a broad set of indicators to gauge the health of the labour market and how it is adjusting to tighter monetary policy. As we watch to see how the economy is responding to higher interest rates, we expect that some parts of the economy will be more sensitive to higher borrowing costs and will slow earlier or more sharply. The response will be somewhat uneven. Some industries more than others will see fewer vacancies or even job losses. We’ll be looking beyond headline employment numbers to gauge how different groups in the labour market are adjusting. Last year, we launched our new dashboard of indicators to help us assess the overall health of the labour market and where we are relative to maximum sustainable employment.

LABOUR SUPPLY

That brings me to the second component of getting back to balance: labour supply. The labour market is also being—and will continue to be—profoundly affected by supply-side developments that are beyond the scope of monetary policy. That brings us back to one of the frequently asked questions: “Where are all the workers?”

The short answer is most of them are working and some have retired. We now have half a million more people employed than we did before COVID-19 hit. But an increase in retirements and less immigration early in the pandemic have reduced labour force growth. That’s another reason the labour market is so tight. These demographic shifts have played a big role in the supply of labour. In Canada, as in many advanced economies, the age group that grew the fastest in recent years was those aged 65 and over. That’s not pandemic-related, it’s simply the aging of the baby boomers. Those over 65 tend to have the lowest labour force participation rate, and that has been pulling down the growth of Canada’s labour force in recent years.

Immigration has typically helped Canada’s labour force grow. But the pandemic disrupted immigration flows. Borders closed, and Canada fell short of its 2020 immigration target by about 156,000 people, or an estimated 100,000 workers.

Fortunately, immigration is bouncing back as border restrictions return to normal. Canada met its immigration target of 401,000 in 2021. And, based on the increase in the immigration targets since then, the shortfall in permanent residents caused by the pandemic should be recouped in 2023.9 Many advanced economies whose populations are aging are looking to increased immigration to meet the needs of their labour markets. But because of relatively higher immigration targets, Canada will have an advantage in coming years—Canada’s population growth is expected to far exceed that of other G7 countries (Chart 4).

This is a key reason why the growth outlook in our October Monetary Policy Report exceeds that of some of our peers, including the United States. The strong immigration targets suggest that net immigration will account for over two-thirds of the expected growth in Canada’s potential output.

The strength of the labour market has helped improve outcomes for recent immigrants. We can also increase participation by other workers, including women, if we leverage the changes that these tight labour markets have brought. We can further reduce the long-standing gap between prime working-age women and men. The pandemic showed us how important child care is—when it disappeared, so did many female workers. Canada’s female participation rate is higher than that of the United States. But other countries have higher female participation than we do—we’re only just above the median of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for participation of women aged 25 to 54, ranking 16th out of 38 in 2021. Improvements to universal child care may narrow these differences, though the full effects will take time.

Other populations may also benefit from improved labour market access, including Indigenous people, who have a younger and faster-growing population than many other groups. Potential for remote work, as well as training to develop skills in areas with critical labour shortages, may open new opportunities for groups facing local labour market challenges. And companies need to do their part to attract and retain new segments of the labour force.

By adjusting to and taking advantage of structural changes in the labour market, Canada can increase the sustainable growth rate of our economy. An aging population reduces the participation rate, and higher immigration is becoming increasingly important for Canada’s potential growth. Changes brought by globalization and technological change, especially digitalization, will also continue to affect labour demand and the skills employers need. The net effect on maximum sustainable employment is something we will be working to assess.

An increased supply of workers raises the rate the economy can grow without generating inflationary pressures. But enhancing supply takes time. It also creates new demand. New workers will have new incomes, and that will add to spending in the economy. That’s why increasing supply, while valuable, is not a substitute for using monetary policy to moderate demand and bring demand and supply into balance.

CONCLUSION

It’s time for me to conclude.

Since the onset of COVID-19, the labour market has been in tremendous turmoil. The pandemic caused a surge in unemployment and had a terribly uneven impact, exacerbating the inequality already faced by women, youth and marginalized workers. We were very concerned about widespread job losses, deep cuts in consumer spending and, ultimately, deflation. But the recovery was swift and across the board, with the fastest rebound in employment ever. Now the economy has gone too far in the other direction. The economy is in excess demand, the job market is too tight, and inflation is too high. Monetary policy has begun to have an impact, but it will take time for the effects of higher interest rates to spread through the economy and reduce demand and inflation.

Once we get through the slowdown, growth will pick up and our economy can grow solidly again with healthy employment and low inflation. How much employment growth we can achieve while maintaining low inflation will depend on the growth of labour supply. This is the fundamental concept that maximum sustainable employment captures. It is not maximum employment—it’s how much employment the economy can sustain while maintaining price stability. As I said earlier, you can’t have one without the other.

Growing maximum sustainable employment is a shared responsibility of government, businesses and workers. Increased immigration adds potential workers, and governments need to ensure newcomers have a smooth path into the workforce, with credential recognition and settlement support like language and skills training. Businesses need to invest in training so we can reduce the skills mismatch. And workers need to invest in gaining the skills the new economy needs.

Our priority at the Bank of Canada is to restore price stability. The overriding imperative is to ensure that high inflation does not become entrenched because, if that happens, nothing works well. This was the experience of the 1970s.11 The failure to control inflation resulted in high inflation and high unemployment. Labour strife increased as workers tried to cope with large increases in the cost of living. And ultimately it took much higher interest rates, and a severe recession with a large increase in unemployment, to rein in inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. That is exactly what everyone wants to avoid.

That’s why we have front-loaded our interest rate increases. And that’s why we are resolute in our commitment to return inflation to the 2% target. To get there, we need to rebalance the labour market. This will be a difficult adjustment. We want to do this in the best way possible for Canadian workers and businesses. Higher interest rates will help cool spending and the demand for labour in the economy. This will give supply time to catch up, relieving price pressures. We will be monitoring a wide range of indicators to assess this rebalancing and Canada’s sustainable growth rate. Canada has some advantages that will help support our labour supply, creating more capacity for growth.

The best contribution monetary policy can make to a healthy labour market is to deliver price stability. With inflation and inflation expectations well anchored on the 2% target, our economy, our workers and our businesses will be positioned for growth and prosperity.

Thank you.

I would like to thank Mikael Khan and Corinne Luu for their help in preparing this speech.

With files from The Canadian Press



'Only Path Forward:' Exit Polls Show Young Women Voted For Democrats Amid Abortion Debate

By Marvie Basilan Chorawan
11/14/22

KEY POINTS

72% of women under 30 voted for Democrats in House races

In several states, a majority of young women also voted for Democrats for senate seats

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked debates on abortion rights


Ahuge percentage of young women voted for Democrats in the midterm elections amid debates over abortion rights in the country. Exit polls showed women under 30 played a key role in crumbling the Republicans' hopes for a "red wave."

Women aged between 18 and 29 went 72% for House Democrats and only 26% supported Republicans, exit polls jointly conducted by CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC showed. A whopping 57% of women aged 30-44 supported Democrats, while only 41% voted for Republicans in the House.

For Senate seats, the majority of women under 30 voted for Democrats. 76% of young women in Arizona voted for Mark Kelly, while 20% voted for Blake Masters. Even Florida, which turned red in the midterms, saw 57% of women under 30 voting for Val Demings.



In Georgia, 63% of young women voted for the Democratic Party's Raphael Warnock, while 34% voted for the GOP's Herschel Walker. In Nevada, 64% of women aged 18-29 voted for Catherine Cortez Masto, while 31% voted for Adam Laxalt.

A similar turnout was seen in New Hampshire, where 74% of women in the 18-29 age group voted for Democrat Maggie Hassan, while 23% voted for Donald Bolduc. The same was the case in Pennsylvania, where 70% of women under 30 voted for John Fetterman, while 28% voted for Mehmet Oz.
READ MORE
Trump Faces Criticism For Republican Defeats

"I think most young women feel that the best thing for their rights and for the future of the country is to vote for Democrat," 24-year-old Elizabeth Rickert, from Ohio, told The Hill.

Rickert further explained she thinks younger women believe "voting Democrat is the only path forward" as the GOP "becomes more extreme and moves away from the core American principals of democracy and rights for all."

Some observers believe a predicted "red wave" in the midterm elections was ultimately thwarted by "people motivated by the erosion of abortion rights," Politico reported.



"Had the Supreme Court not overturned Roe v Wade back in June, the Democrats wouldn't have had that to energize voters," Jon Taylor, a political science professor at the University of Texas, said, adding the issue "actually helped the Democrats stave off that Red Wave."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion at the national level, triggering a wave of protests. Republicans have been pushing to either completely ban or limit the procedure.

The decision is believed to have played a key factor in the midterms, with concerned young women turning up in large numbers. "Abortion is a winning issue and will continue to be in elections to come," said Mini Timmaraju, president of the nonprofitNaral Pro-Choice America.


Despite the high turnout of young female voters for Democrats, some experts note the extent to which the votes of women under 30 have actually affected the results is unclear and will not be determined until after election results are officially counted.

David Shor, founder of Democratic data analysis firm Blue Rose Research, pointed out that numbers from early voting do not necessarily support the notion that young voters had a very crucial effect on the victory of Democratic candidates, the New York Times reported.



President Joe Biden last week said the turnout of young voters "sent a clear and unmistakable message," that they want to "protect the right to choose."

Abortion rights debates have been on the rise since a landmark ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.


© Copyright IBTimes 2022. All rights reserved.

Reflections on the ‘Stupid and Wicked’

During an interview with the BBC in 1959, Bertrand Russell was asked about his efforts campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Some things, I think, are self-evident, and the desirability of avoiding a nuclear holocaust is one of them. Advocating for the elimination of genocidal weaponry should require very little further justification, but Russell was courteous and responded by saying, "I can’t bear the thought of many hundreds of millions of people dying in agony, only and solely because the rulers of the world are stupid and wicked."

The actions of the "stupid and wicked" are on display in Eastern Europe, and they have provided fresh inspiration for talk of nuclear war. The commander of US Strategic Command recently said, "this Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup," and "the big one is coming." During a fundraising event, Joe Biden alluded to Russia’s willingness to use nuclear weaponry, saying Putin is "not bluffing" when he insinuates he would do so. The Russians and the Americans are both conducting war games in Europe, simultaneously rehearsing the use of nuclear weapons. Both feel it necessary to have a trial performance for actions that would likely extinguish human life if they ever enacted these performances.

If someone wished to apportion blame for the crisis in Ukraine, it would be distributed among many entities; the ranks of the "stupid and wicked" are rather swollen. The Russian state started a war of aggression, violating the UN Charter and committing "the supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal described it. Within the context of this quintessential war crime, they’ve committed others. They conducted fraudulent referendums in four Ukrainian oblasts and used the results as a pretext to extend Russian sovereignty into those regions. And Russian officials have made repeated insinuations about the use of nuclear weapons.

The American role in creating the conditions that led to the current crisis shouldn’t be ignored, and the American refusal to pursue a diplomatic settlement cannot remain unchallenged. In an interview published a month into the invasion, Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat, encapsulated the Biden administration’s policy by saying the US was willing to fight Russia "to the last Ukrainian." Advancing perceived American geopolitical interests are prioritized over the well-being of Ukrainians, which should be unsurprising to those without a naïve view of how states function.

The Biden administration has acted in opposition to a diplomatic settlement to the conflict since before the invasion in February. During an interview with a foreign policy website called War on the Rocks, Derek Chollet, a counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, confirmed the American’s unwillingness to discuss the extension of NATO into Ukraine in the lead-up to the invasion. He called the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO a "non-issue," which is a rather flippant way to treat Russia’s security concerns.

There was a clear lack of convergence between the administration’s publicly stated position and that which they adhered to privately: during an interview with Fareed Zakaria on March 20th, the Ukrainian President spoke about his desire for clarity about Ukraine’s future in NATO. He said, "I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no." The Biden administration told him that "you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open."

Negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian officials occurred in Istanbul starting in late March, and a tentative agreement was reached in early April. The UK Prime Boris Johnson found this objectionable, so he went to Kyiv and told the Ukrainians that the Russians "should be pressured, not negotiated with," and "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." The Turkish Foreign Minister later said, "there are countries within NATO who want the war to continue," and "they want Russia to become weaker." Lloyd Austin, America’s Secretary of Defense, further confirmed this by saying, "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine." The spokesperson for the State Department said that "this is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine."

The Washington Post published a story saying that "Privately, US officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table." This intolerably misrepresents the American position. The "stupid and wicked" have prevented negotiations from achieving an end to the war; characterizing this as an unwillingness to "nudge" Ukraine towards a diplomatic settlement is an absurd departure from the facts.

The "stupid and wicked" are causing the suffering of millions of Ukrainians because they perceive their imperial interests to be of greater importance than the well-being of human beings, and they’re risking an even greater tragedy considering the nuclear arsenals of the Nations involved. The obscenity of this shouldn’t be missed.

Brendan O’Soro is an independent writer from western Massachusetts. He writes on Substack.

ANTIWAR.COM

Congressional Amendment Opens Floodgates for War Profiteers and a Major Ground War on Russia

If the powerful leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Jack Reed (D) and Jim Inhofe (R), have their way, Congress will soon invoke wartime emergency powers to build up even greater stockpiles of Pentagon weapons. The amendment is supposedly designed to facilitate replenishing the weapons the United States has sent to Ukraine, but a look at the wish list contemplated in this amendment reveals a different story.

Reed and Inhofe’s idea is to tuck their wartime amendment into the FY2023 National Defense Appropriation Act (NDAA) that will be passed during the lameduck session before the end of the year. The amendment sailed through the Armed Services Committee in mid-October and, if it becomes law, the Department of Defense will be allowed to lock in multi-year contracts and award non-competitive contracts to arms manufacturers for Ukraine-related weapons.

If the Reed/Inhofe amendment is really aimed at replenishing the Pentagon’s supplies, then why do the quantities in its wish list vastly surpass those sent to Ukraine?

Let’s do the comparison:

  • The current star of U.S. military aid to Ukraine is Lockheed Martin’s HIMARS rocket system, the same weapon US Marines used to help reduce much of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, to rubble in 2017. The US has only sent 38 HIMARS systems to Ukraine, but Senators Reed and Inhofe plan to "reorder" 700 of them, with 100,000 rockets, which could cost up to $4 billion.

  • Another artillery weapon provided to Ukraine is the M777 155 mm howitzer. To "replace" the 142 M777s sent to Ukraine, the senators plan to order 1,000 of them, at an estimated cost of $3.7 billion, from BAE Systems.

  • HIMARS launchers can also fire Lockheed Martin’s long-range (up to 190 miles) MGM-140 ATACMS missiles, which the US has not sent to Ukraine. In fact the US has only ever fired 560 of them, mostly at Iraq in 2003. The even longer-range "Precision Strike Missile," formerly prohibited under the INF Treaty renounced by Trump, will start replacing the ATACMS in 2023, yet the Reed-Inhofe Amendment would buy 6,000 ATACMS, 10 times more than the US has ever used, at an estimated cost of $600 million.

  • Reed and Inhofe plan to buy 20,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from Raytheon. But Congress already spent $340 million for 2,800 Stingers to replace the 1,400 sent to Ukraine. Reed and Inhofe’s amendment will "re-replenish" the Pentagon’s stocks 14 times over, which could cost $2.4 billion.

  • The United States has supplied Ukraine with only two Harpoon anti-ship missile systems – already a provocative escalation – but the amendment includes 1,000 Boeing Harpoon missiles (at about $1.4 billion) and 800 newer Kongsberg Naval Strike Missiles (about $1.8 billion), the Pentagon’s replacement for the Harpoon.

  • The Patriot air defense system is another weapon the US has not sent to Ukraine, because each system can cost a billion dollars and the basic training course for technicians to maintain and repair it takes more than a year to complete. And yet the Inhofe-Reed wish list includes 10,000 Patriot missiles, plus launchers, which could add up to $30 billion.

ATACMS, Harpoons and Stingers are all weapons the Pentagon was already phasing out, so why spend billions of dollars to buy thousands of them now? What is this really all about? Is this amendment a particularly egregious example of war profiteering by the military-industrial-Congressional complex? Or is the United States really preparing to fight a major ground war against Russia?

Our best judgment is that both are true.

Looking at the weapons list, military analyst and retired Marine Colonel Mark Cancian noted: "This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future. This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list."

President Biden says he will not send US troops to fight Russia because that would be World War III. But the longer the war goes on and the more it escalates, the more it becomes clear that US forces are directly involved in many aspects of the war: helping to plan Ukrainian operations; providing satellite-based intelligence; waging cyber warfare; and operating covertly inside Ukraine as special operations forces and CIA paramilitaries. Now Russia has accused British special operations forces of direct roles in a maritime drone attack on Sevastopol and the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines.

As US involvement in the war has escalated despite Biden’s broken promises, the Pentagon must have drawn up contingency plans for a full-scale war between the United States and Russia. If those plans are ever executed, and if they do not immediately trigger a world-ending nuclear war, they will require vast quantities of specific weapons, and that is the purpose of the Reed-Inhofe stockpiles.

At the same time, the amendment seems to respond to complaints by the weapons manufacturers that the Pentagon was "moving too slowly" in spending the vast sums appropriated for Ukraine. While over $20 billion has been allocated for weapons, contracts to actually buy weapons for Ukraine and replace the ones sent there so far totaled only $2.7 billion by early November.

So the expected arms sales bonanza had not yet materialized, and the weapons makers were getting impatient. With the rest of the world increasingly calling for diplomatic negotiations, if Congress didn’t get moving, the war might be over before the arms makers’ much-anticipated jackpot ever arrived.

Mark Cancian explained to DefenseNews, "We’ve been hearing from industry, when we talk to them about this issue, that they want to see a demand signal."

When the Reed-Inhofe Amendment sailed through committee in mid-October, it was clearly the "demand signal" the merchants of death were looking for. The stock prices of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics took off like antiaircraft missiles, exploding to all-time highs by the end of the month.

Julia Gledhill, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, decried the wartime emergency provisions in the amendment, saying it "further deteriorates already weak guardrails in place to prevent corporate price gouging of the military."

Opening the doors to multi-year, noncompetitive, multi-billion dollar military contracts shows how the American people are trapped in a vicious spiral of war and military spending. Each new war becomes a pretext for further increases in military spending, much of it unrelated to the current war that provides cover for the increase. Military budget analyst Carl Conetta demonstrated (see Executive Summary) in 2010, after years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, that "those operations account(ed) for only 52% of the surge" in US military spending during that period.

Andrew Lautz of the National Taxpayers’ Union now calculates that the base Pentagon budget will exceed $1 trillion per year by 2027, five years earlier than projected by the Congressional Budget Office. But if we factor in at least $230 billion per year in military-related costs in the budgets of other departments, like Energy (for nuclear weapons), Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Justice (FBI cybersecurity), and State, national insecurity spending has already hit the trillion dollar per year mark, gobbling up two-thirds of annual discretionary spending.

America’s exorbitant investment in each new generation of weapons makes it nearly impossible for politicians of either party to recognize, let alone admit to the public, that American weapons and wars have been the cause of many of the world’s problems, not the solution, and that they cannot solve the latest foreign policy crisis either.

Senators Reed and Inhofe will defend their amendment as a prudent step to deter and prepare for a Russian escalation of the war, but the spiral of escalation we are locked into is not one-sided. It is the result of escalatory actions by both sides, and the huge arms buildup authorized by this amendment is a dangerously provocative escalation by the US side that will increase the danger of the World War that President Biden has promised to avoid

After the catastrophic wars and ballooning US military budgets of the past 25 years, we should be wise by now to the escalatory nature of the vicious spiral in which we are caught. And after flirting with Armageddon for 45 years in the last Cold War, we should also be wise to the existential danger of engaging in this kind of brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia. So, if we are wise, we will oppose the Reed/Inhofe Amendment.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflictavailable from OR Books in November 2022.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

ANTIWAR.COM

Chaos on the tracks as Australian freight train derails during stormy weather

Benjamin Preiss and Caroline Schelle
 Nov 14 2022

A freight train has derailed in Australia after storms lashed Victoria early Monday morning (local time).

Victoria’s State Emergency Service confirmed the train derailed between Inverleigh and Gheringhap, about 30 kilometres west of Geelong at about 5.30am on Monday morning (local time).

Dozens of containers spilled onto the tracks but no one was injured, according to the SES.

Between eight and 10 carriages came off the tracks in the incident but no dangerous goods were on board, the authority said.


NINE
Tens of carriages have been involved in the derailment.

Ambulance Victoria was not required at the crash scene and rail authorities were on the way to the scene to investigate the cause of the derailment.

Golden Plains Shire mayor Gavin Gamble, who lives in Teesdale near the site of the derailment, said many roads were closed in the area because of heavy overnight rain.

He was seeking an update on the train incident, but was unable to leave his home because his driveway was flooded.

“It’s currently like a river with a waterfall going over our drive,” Gamble said.

Gamble said he had seen reports that 60 millimetres of rain fell in the area overnight.

“It was very localised and heavy,” he said.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD
The train derailed 30 kilometres west of Geelong.

A spokesperson for the Australian Rail Track Corporation confirmed it was investigating the crash.

“There were no injuries to the train crew and there were no dangerous good containers impacted by the incident,” the spokesperson said.

“The service derailed with containers displaced on both sides of the track and some within an adjoining paddock.

“The incident has resulted in the closure of the Melbourne-Adelaide rail corridor. Affected customers have been notified.

“Artc response crews are on site, and emergency services are also in attendance.

“The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has been notified and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has taken control of the site. Artc has immediately commenced working with customers on a recovery plan.”


NINE
The wild weather is said to have caused the derailment.

Inverleigh resident and editor of the Leigh News Peter Trevaskis said a farm near the derailment site received 92mm of rain overnight.

He said houses in the town were inundated when the floods began on October 14 and much of the area was still saturated.

Another Inverleigh resident, Robyn, told ABC Radio Melbourne there was torrential rain overnight.

“There’s at least 20 containers just everywhere and Inverleigh itself is pretty much awash with just water over the roads everywhere,” she said on Monday (local time).

Closures remain in place along the nearby Hamilton Highway between Inverleigh and Burnside Road at Stonehaven due to flooding, according to VicTraffic.

Australian train derails from flooded tracks in horrific scene

By Adelaide Lang, News.com.au
November 13, 2022 
An Australian train derailed after a month of wild weather and widespread flooding.

A Victorian train has been derailed after a month of wild weather and widespread flooding damaged the rail tracks.

Shocking photos from the scene at Inverleigh, near Geelong, reveal the extent of the damage as more than 20 shipping containers lay sprawled across the nearby paddocks.

Eight wagons derailed from the flood-damaged tracks at 5.30 am on Monday, smashing dozens of shipping containers as they fell.

At least 20 shipping containers were piled on top of each other in the chaotic crash scene about 56 miles from Melbourne.

The freight train stopped just short of a level crossing, which authorities say has already been reopened
.
Photos show 20 shipping containers lay sprawled across the nearby paddocks.

The train tracks had suffered damage during the wild weather and heavy rainfall over the weekend when as much as 3 inches fell over 24 hours in some areas.

Pictures from the scene of the derailment appear to show the rail tracks buckling as water seeps underneath the vital lines.

Authorities have confirmed no injuries have been reported yet, but they will be left with a large clean-up. Emergency services said there were no dangerous goods on-board the train.

Inverleigh saw over an inch of rainfall on top of previous flooding.
No injuries have been reported yet
Authorities are still investigating the cause of the crash.
JAMES ROSS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Investigators are on site trying to determine the cause of the devastating incident.

The Inverleigh area, just 19 miles from Geelong, copped over an inch of rainfall on top of previous flooding.

The train derailment comes as households across Victoria are reporting blackouts after the wild weather.

Flash flooding has closed lanes on the crucial ring road, so motorists are being urged to take care.

Unfortunately for flood-weary communities, further rainfall is forecast for Monday before chilly temperatures and more settled weather moves in.

The SES said it had received more than 400 requests for assistance in the last 24 hours as floodwaters rise again in already-saturated regions.
China’s Li emphasized ‘irresponsibility’ of nuclear threats at ASEAN: US official


Chinese Premier Li Keqiang November 4, 2022. (Reuters)

Reuters, Nusa Dua, Indonesia
Published: 14 November ,2022:

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang emphasized the “irresponsibility” of nuclear threats during a summit in Cambodia, suggesting Beijing is uncomfortable with strategic partner Russia’s nuclear rhetoric, a senior US official said on Monday.

Li participated in the East Asia Summit on Sunday along with US President Joe Biden. The Chinese premier “spoke rather extensively about China’s policy towards Ukraine,” said a senior US administration official, who briefed reporters ahead of a summit between Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday.

Li “put clear emphasis on sovereignty, on the irresponsibility of nuclear threats, the need to ensure that nuclear weapons are not used in the way that some have suggested,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The West has accused Russia of making irresponsible statements on the possible use of nuclear weapons since its February invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has in turn accused the West of “provocative” nuclear rhetoric.

The US official said there was “undeniably some discomfort in Beijing about what we’ve seen in terms of reckless rhetoric and activity on the part of Russia,” despite a formal partnership with Moscow.

“I think it is also undeniable that China is probably both surprised and even a little bit embarrassed by the conduct of Russian military operations,” the official said.

Biden at the summit on Sunday in Cambodia said the United States would “compete vigorously” with China while keeping lines of communication open to prevent conflict.

Biden and Xi will meet in person on Monday for the first time since Biden assumed office early last year.

Premier Li is expected to be replaced next year, and the US official said Washington believes Xi will bring “some new faces” to the meeting with Biden on Monday.
AI CANADA HACKED




1-800-AMNESTY (1-800-266-3789)
www.amnesty.ca


You may have attempted to reach us over the past few days without success. Amnesty International Canadian Section (English Speaking) recently experienced a sophisticated cyber security breach on our systems. As a result, our emails and usual means of communications were temporarily unavailable.

The breach was first detected on October 5, 2022, when our new security monitoring tools alerted us to suspicious activity on our IT infrastructure.

We immediately engaged international cyber security experts to investigate the breach, take systems offline, reinforce security, and implement measures to limit the impact and mitigate against potential future risks. Relevant authorities were also notified.

We took swift action to protect our systems and set up a local and global taskforce to address the threat, which includes highly skilled cyber forensic investigators and security experts.

Security experts are currently in the process of completing the investigation to determine the full extent of this cyber incident. To date, our investigation has uncovered no evidence that any donor or membership data was taken.

What happens next?

Access to our emails has been restored and we are currently continuing to ensure that the privacy and data of our staff, donors, stakeholders, and all those who engage with AICSES remains secure.

We continue to work with cyber security experts and Canadian authorities and will provide further updates as appropriate.

In the meantime, we advise all individuals who have interacted with Amnesty staff or systems to take additional steps to protect their personal information and reduce or mitigate the risk of potential harm from this breach, including:


monitor all your online accounts for suspicious activity;

update your passwords, using complex and different passwords for all accounts.

use security tools available from banking and other institutions to monitor your account activity;

and update your personal security software and operating systems regularly to ensure these systems are up to date.

If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us at members@amnesty.ca or 1800-AMNESTY(266-3789).



Spain’s far-right Vox seeks Italian inspiration


Giorgia Meloni’s victory shows southern Europe is ripe for right-wing nationalism — but can Vox take advantage?


In Andalusia, Spain's far-right party Vox fell short of expectations and its lead candidate Macarena Olona was forced to leave | Cristina Quicler/AFP via Getty Images

BY GUY HEDGECOE
NOVEMBER 14, 2022 4:00 AM CET

MADRID — Spain’s far-right Vox is casting envious glances across the Mediterranean at Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party.

Meloni’s election victory in September was a huge boost for Vox, which shares ideological ground with Brothers of Italy and has a strong relationship with its leader.

Vox chief Santiago Abascal tweeted a montage of pictures of himself with Meloni on the day after Italians went to the polls, and praised her for “showing the way to a Europe that is proud, free and of sovereign nations, capable of cooperating for the security and prosperity of all.”

His party could hardly have hoped for a clearer signal that Southern Europe is ripe for right-wing nationalism.

But Meloni’s rise comes as Vox is grappling with a crisis that has caused many to question its future.

The hectic electoral year about to begin in Spain will either show the party is capable of following the example of Brothers of Italy and entering national government, or confirm it to be a populist aberration in decline.

Vox announced itself as a political force in the 2018 regional election in Andalusia, after running on an ultra-nationalist, anti-immigrant, fiercely unionist platform. The following year, it confirmed its rise by winning 52 seats in the national Congress, behind only the Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and the conservative Popular Party (PP). It subsequently made further advances on a local level, entering a coalition government with the PP in the region of Castile and León earlier this year.

But it was back in Andalusia where the scene of Vox’s first major disappointment took place, when the party fell well short of expectations by gaining only two new seats as the PP swept to a majority in June. That result triggered the departure of Vox’s lead candidate in the region, Macarena Olona, who has since waged a highly publicized war of words with her former party, while hinting that she plans to form a rival force of her own.

“For me, Vox is the past,” she told El País newspaper, accusing the party of spreading fake news and insults about her.

The writer and journalist Enric Juliana noted: “The Olona phenomenon is the first serious crack in a hermetically sealed party.”

The demotion in October of the Vox deputy leader, Javier Ortega Smith, has added to the sense of flux. A TV documentary, meanwhile, showed former Vox politicians alleging that the party had neo-Nazis in its ranks and was run by authoritarian hypocrites. Meanwhile, polls showed Vox to have suffered a dip, as the PP surged under leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo, who was appointed in April.

No senior Vox politicians were available to comment for this article. However, Rafael Bardají, a co-founder of Vox who holds no post in the party but is close to Abascal, acknowledges the sense of crisis. He attributes this in great part to the Andalusia result and Olona’s attacks. However, Bardají also believes Vox has become too comfortable as it hovers in polls close to 15 percent of the vote share.



“It’s gone from being a party that is virtually outside the system to forming part of institutional life,” said Bardají, who was a senior adviser to conservative ex-Prime Minister José María Aznar. “For example, Santiago Abascal only speaks in parliament. Spaniards don’t hear or follow what happens in parliament enough for it to be the best place from which to be an opposition party. He needs to get out onto the street more.”

Others see Vox as lacking a meaty issue to get its populist teeth into. Although the party has run an aggressive campaign against illegal migrants, targeting in particular North African minors, immigration was only ranked 16th in a recent study listing Spaniards’ biggest worries, behind the economy, corruption and the behavior of political parties.

Unlike other far-right parties in Europe, Vox’s rise was closely tied to its strident opposition to regional nationalism.

“Our rivals are the two forces which have caused the most damage to Spain in recent years: the left and separatism,” Vox’s parliamentary spokesman, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, said recently. “And in some cases they are more than rivals, they are enemies.”

But the Catalan independence drive, which peaked in 2017, has faded from the political spotlight.

“Catalonia was the gasoline that fueled Vox’s rise,” said Miguel González, author of “Vox S.A.: El negocio del patriotismo español,” a biography of the party. “But the Catalan situation has calmed down and immigration doesn’t work [as a mobilizing issue].”

Nonetheless, Vox has been buoyed by support from its allies outside Spain. At a party rally in October, Donald Trump sent a video message congratulating Abascal for the “incredible job he does,” while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe also appeared via video link.

But Vox’s most valued foreign ties are with Meloni, who also sent a video message to the event.

An initial flirtation with Matteo Salvini of the League several years ago was scuppered by the Italian’s support for Catalan nationalism. Instead, Vox courted Meloni, when she was still only polling in low single digits. Abascal has traveled to Rome to meet her and she has taken part in several events in Spain, among them a Vox rally in Marbella during the Andalusia election campaign, at which she delivered a fiery speech.

“With Meloni, since she saw that [Vox] gave her a certain amount of recognition, there has been a personal relationship there, more than a political one,” said Bardají.

Brothers of Italy and Vox are also both in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) in the European Parliament, along with Poland’s Law and Justice party.

The next challenge for the Spanish party is municipal and regional elections to be held in May, followed by a general election by the end of 2023. However, Vox’s ambitions are more modest than those of its Italian and Polish allies, given that realistically it only looks capable of entering government as the junior partner of the conservative PP, assuming the two parties could secure a majority.

Bardají says that Abascal wants to secure a handful of ministerial posts for Vox overseeing policy areas that are close to its ultra-nationalist Catholic values, such as interior, justice and education.

In the meantime, González says that a deterioration of the economy could provide fertile ground for Vox to rebound from its current domestic woes.

“We are in a very uncertain economic situation,” he said. “Until now it has been the PP that has managed to capitalize on that much more than Vox. But a party like Vox feeds off social unrest and crisis.”