Peru's president doubles her salary despite record low approval rating
Others shared footage of the president's recent visit to the city of Arequipa, where her car was pelted with stones and eggs, to illustrate the anger many Peruvians feel.Boluarte was not elected as president. Instead, she came to power in December 2022, when the previous president, Pedro Castillo, was impeached and she, as the vice-president at the time, stepped in to fill the vacuum. Her presidency has been overshadowed by several investigations, including into whether she failed to declare luxury gifts and into whether she abandoned her post when she did not appoint a caretaker president during her absence for surgery on her nose. She has denied any wrongdoing but her already low approval ratings has fallen further as Peruvians grow increasingly impatient at what they say is her failure to tackle rising crime.Economy Minister Raúl Pérez Reyes said that prior to the raise, Boluarte's salary had been the second lowest of 12 countries in the region, with only Bolivia paying its president less per month. Her new salary is almost 35 times that of the monthly minimum wages, which stands at 1,025 soles ($288; £210).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 minutes ago
- Reuters
Japan's exports log biggest drop in 4 years as US tariff impacts intensify
TOKYO, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Japan's exports posted the biggest monthly drop in about four years in July, government data showed on Wednesday, as the impact of U.S. tariffs intensified, raising concerns about the outlook for the export-reliant economy. Total exports from the world's fourth-largest economy dropped 2.6% year-on-year in July in value terms, the biggest monthly drop since February 2021, when exports fell 4.5%. It was larger than a median market forecast for a 2.1% decrease and marks a third straight month of decline after a 0.5% drop in June. Despite the plunge in the value of exports, shipment volumes have so far held up as Japanese exporters have avoided major price hikes, said Takeshi Minami, chief economist at Norinchukin Research Institute. "But they would eventually have to pass on costs to U.S. consumers and that would further hamper sales in the coming months," he said. Exports to the United States in July fell 10.1% from a year earlier, with automobiles slumping 28.4% and automotive components down 17.4%. However, automobile exports fell just 3.2% in volume terms, suggesting Japanese automakers' price cuts and efforts to absorb additional tariffs have partly shielded shipments. The United States imposed 25% tariffs on automobiles and auto parts in April and threatened 25% levies on most of Japan's other goods. It later struck a trade deal on July 23 that lowered tariffs to 15% in exchange for a U.S.-bound $550 billion Japanese investment package. The agreed tariff rate on automobiles, Japan's largest export sector, is still far higher than the original 2.5%, exerting pressure on major automakers and parts suppliers. Exports to other regions were also weak. Those to China were down 3.5%, the data showed. Total imports in July dropped 7.5% from a year earlier, compared with market forecasts for a 10.4% fall. As a result, Japan ran a deficit of 117.5 billion yen ($795.4 million) in July, compared with a forecast of a 196.2 billion yen surplus. The outcome follows unexpectedly strong growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in the April-June quarter, separate data showed last week, fuelled by surprisingly resilient exports and capital expenditure. Economists said the strong exports growth in GDP data reflected differences in how the impact of price changes is factored in. Nevertheless, Norinchukin's Minami said that the Japanese economy has so far avoided the worst. "As the tariff deal has at least reduced uncertainties, the Bank of Japan is likely to resume rate hikes as early as in October," he said. ($1 = 147.7200 yen)
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The real difficulty ministers face is that the Epping hotel judgment is a clean and fair application of the law: ANDREW TETTENBORN
There's a beautiful irony in the Epping hotel injunction. The Government's immigration policy of putting asylum seekers in hotels in some of the less well-off parts of the country has received a major blow from the legal class that Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and many of their learned friends themselves inhabit. And it's a blow that sees the long-term viability of the Government's immigration policy unravel, as councils up and down the country will seek to use this ruling to shut down their own troublesome migrant hotels. The difficulty for the Government is that Mr Justice Eyre's decision is a clean, fair, straightforward application of the law. He has ruled that, if planning permission exists for a hotel, it's a blatant breach of planning law to use the premises as a long-term asylum reception centre. Who'd have thought it? At bottom, it's no different from a convoy of travellers breaking planning law by parking caravans on a public recreation ground, or a farmer building a holiday camp on an arable field. The courts regularly issue stiff injunctions in cases like these, and rightly so. But Starmer and the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, were surprisingly complacent, imagining that somehow this didn't apply to their own activities. When the penny dropped at the last minute, they scrambled to influence the result, sending barrister Edward Brown KC to argue that the local authority 'should, in fact, have given some consideration to the wider public interest in this application'. In other words, that an injunction should not be allowed because it would make life very difficult for the Government. Counsel for the hotelier took much the same line, effectively ignoring the concerns of the local people who had been protesting outside The Bell ever since an Ethiopian asylum seeker lodging there was charged with sexual assault against a 14-year-old schoolgirl. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common,' he said. 'But that does not make them well founded.' The hotelier's barrister was, of course, doing his job. Nevertheless, such legal arguments blithely take no notice of local problems caused by uncontrolled immigration and the small boats crisis, which has seen more than 50,000 undocumented illegal migrants crossing the Channel to Britain in the 13 months since Labour came to power. Until now, the Home Office has seemed content to dump the problem on councils such as Epping, where voters traditionally mistrust Labour. Now those voters have rightly dumped it back on the Government. What seriously spooks the Home Office is that Epping will not be a lone case. Across the kingdom we could now see multiple injunctions, forcing the Home Secretary in short order to relocate tens of thousands of asylum seekers currently in hotels – there are more than 32,000 according to figures released in March. And it is urgent: The High Court has given the Government only three weeks, until September 12, to vacate The Bell. The Government must act, and fast. One option might be to set up more dedicated reception centres, as in Germany and France. Another is to deter small-boat crossings by making it more difficult for illegal migrants to enter the black economy. The ball is firmly, and legally, in its court.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Make no mistake, what's unfolding is spiteful class warfare on steroids: JEFF PRESTRIDGE
Another day and yet another rumour emerges of an egregious attack on the wealth of Middle England by this tax-grabbing Government. It's enough to reduce grown men and women, the prudent and thrifty to tears. Having just informed us that a more pernicious inheritance tax regime is heading our way, Labour has now indicated that it is looking to impose a new property tax regime on middle-class homeowners. It seems that nothing in our financial armoury – our home, pension and savings – is sacred in the eyes of Labour. It's all there to be grabbed or taxed to the hilt. Although details of the proposed tax are rather sketchy – and Treasury officials are currently remaining schtum – the fact that the story broke in the Labour-supporting Guardian newspaper suggests that this new tax regime has legs. No smoke without fire. The tax, it seems, could apply to those selling homes worth more than £500,000 – and replace the current stamp duty tax which is levied on buyers. Another option is an annual levy on the value of a property – a wealth tax whichever way you look at it. At what rate the tax would be applied is anyone's guess but it would surely be set at such a level that it raised more than the Treasury currently receives in stamp duty (£11.6billion in the last financial year). After all, this is a tax overhaul driven essentially by Labour's desperate need to generate more revenue for the Treasury's coffers, much diminished by the Chancellor's bloated spending and costly U-turns on winter fuel payment and much-needed welfare reform. It's scary – bloody scary. Make no mistake about it, what is unfolding before our very eyes is class warfare on steroids. A spiteful assault on millions of people who through a mix of thrift, sacrifice and damned hard work have built their own financial fortress, only for the Big Bad Wolf that is Labour to come along and attempt to blow it down. While the current stamp duty tax regime is far from perfect, a replacement property tax – whichever form it takes – would bring with it a shedful of issues. For example, if it took the form of a seller's tax, it would surely clog up the housing market even more than it is now. I imagine that many elderly homeowners sitting in sizeable £500,000-plus properties would opt to stay put rather than sell up, pay the tax and downsize. But if it was an annual tax, it could blow a hole in your household budget. Alongside the replacement for stamp duty, Labour is also rumoured to be looking at abolishing council tax and introducing a 'local' property tax which owners, not residents, would pay. This would be based on the value of the home. Good luck there, Rachel Reeves, given that a similar idea (the poll tax) introduced some 35 years ago by a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher went down like a lead balloon – and was swiftly abandoned. Of course, there is a strong case for reform of property taxes in this country. But my suspicion is that Rachel From Accounts will use reform as cover to squeeze the middle classes until the pips squeak. As far as she is concerned our homes, pensions and savings are hers to tap for extra tax. Frightening. Beware of the Big Bad She-Wolf.
