The real losers are the low-income economies that must contend with the worst of both the old world and the new. Lacking middle-income countries’ domestic savings rates, capital markets and foreign-exchange reserves, they are simultaneously reliant on foreign capital flows for investment and less insulated from their sudden reversals. Lacking economic heft, they are more vulnerable to being forced to choose a geopolitical side, restricting their access to funding. The dilemma has become familiar to such countries, and nowhere more than in the next arena of change for the global financial system: payments.
Global trade growth is set to more than double this year as inflation eases and a booming US economy helps to drive activity, according to international bodies.
But protectionist dangers ahead:
The OECD, IMF and WTO have warned about the risks to trade caused by geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts and economic uncertainty, as governments focus on national security, self-reliance and support for domestic companies.
According to the WTO, trade flows between blocs of geopolitically aligned countries have been growing 4 per cent more slowly than trade within those blocs since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Shearing said the US election added to the list of uncertainties about global trade in the coming year. Donald Trump, the former president and presumptive Republican nominee, has pledged to impose a 10 percentage point tariff increase on all the US’s trading partners if he gets re-elected, hinting at even more severe penalties on Chinese imports.
Labour: 1,158 councillors elected and control of 51 councils
Lib Dems: 522 councillors and 12 councils
Conservatives: 515 councillors and 6 councils
Greens: 181 councillors and 0 councils
Reform: 2 councillors and 0 councils
The way council elections work is that they're staggered over a four-year cycle. The places that voted this year were only in parts of England, hence no SNP or PC numbers. By my count, the total split of councils controlled by each party is now roughly:
Labour 116 (almost back to 2015 levels - Corbyn's leadership did a real number on Labour...)
Conservatives 58 (down from a recent peak of 197 in 2017)
Lib Dems 39 (up from 6 in 2015 and the now highest number they've controlled since the late 90s)
Greens 1
Reform 0
The rest are mostly No Overall Control (no party has a majority) or a few run by independents.
Somehow, from this, far-right Tories like Braverman have reached the bizarre conclusion that Reform are the electoral threat they need to worry most about...
It’s insane how Trump manages to get away with everything. Even before he became president, he somehow got away with destroying and bankrupting everything he touched while also managing to fail upwards.
Lol. It’s actually gotten to the point where I almost wouldn’t be surprised if there were some sort of demonic influence giving him some evil villain plot armor.
But the new ruling from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon vacates that date and sets a new slate of pretrial proceedings, the latest of which is a hearing set for July 22.
Um... July 22nd isn't "indefinitely". Either I'm confused or the headline contradicts the actual article.
Obligatory NAL, but it reads as “pretrial proceedings,” which are hearings held prior to trial to determine things like laws pertaining to the crime, the facts, and other issues.
It sounds (to me) like that’s exactly what they have been doing since Cannon was originally appointed as the judge in this case.
What she did was cancel the trial start date, May 20th, and then set a date to resume “pretrial proceedings.”
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. What will surprise me is if he ever actually faces any consequences. Anyone who is still expecting any real justice for trump has not been paying attention.
Whilst my first preference is to see the Tories fade into obscurity, I do think that moderates like Street reclaiming their party (something that is probably almost impossible at this stage) would do enormous good for the quality of political debate and long-term policymaking in Britain.
Human-rights lawyers hope to close some gaps in international law, whether by new agreements (some call for a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for aggression) or by existing courts extending their remit. They also want new curbs on ai and autonomous weapons. But they cannot hold back states bent on violence. Arrest warrants limit leaders’ international travel. But don’t expect to see Mr Putin in the dock.
So what is the point of the court battles? Lawyers offer three answers: to impose a reputational and perhaps economic cost on those who spill blood wantonly; to strengthen the negotiating hand of their victims in future diplomatic talks; and, at a minimum, to establish a credible historical record of atrocities. Confronted with an “epidemic of inhumanity”, Mr Khan has argued, the world must “cling to the law” more tightly. The unspoken danger is that, should he and others fail to curb the horrors, the law will collapse and there will be little left to hold onto.
Neoliberal
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates.