David Herdson

(It is of course ironic that Trump's original beef with Ukraine was that its government *wouldn't* act in a corrupt way for him but no-one ever said consistency is his strong suit.

Or maybe it is - the key distinction not being corrupt or not but whether the corruption is *for him* or not)

It's an excellent piece. The one thing I'd add is that Ukraine's corruption - real or alleged - has been repeatedly used by Trump-aligned actors as an argument against supplying money and weapons. To have not reversed the vote would have handed Trumpites a potent example for their case.

I feel it gave up a bit towards the end.

Which is probably long after most readers would in the actual book, if it's anything like the precis here.

I think we'll see this in the US if Trump gets his way. He seems not to appreciate that just because the Fed might have rates of, say, 1% that doesn't mean the market rate for 5-year lending will be 1% plus costs and profit. Lenders have to factor in depreciation and defaults too.

Low inflation *is* stability though? It's true that high inflation can wipe away debts but that also inhibits lending as well as pushing up real borrowing rates for people and companies alike to often unaffordable levels - particularly for those seeking to roll over debt.

OK. Fair enough. I should have said that they can't just print money *without consequence* - and usually to have a meaningful impact on the issue that the printing is intended to address, the consequences will be so severe as to be counterproductive.

We may get a real-time demo of this in the US.

Although that doesn't really matter here. This issue in question could apply to *anyone*. There is no justification for any solicitor to attempt to act in the way that was done here, to attempt to intimidate someone out of exercising their legal rights.

States cannot just print money. I looked into MMT and it's generally nonsense, with only a few useful insights. There are good reasons why countries don't just print off their debt.

The main one is inflation. More money chasing the same goods and services simply pushes up prices.

Yes, undoubtedly. The ability of people to form distinct echo chambers is far greater than pre-social media, which reinforces their view that they're right and divides them against others. Social media can also be far more precisely targeted in a way that newspapers never could.

Plus, two other factors. Firstly, Western states are in much more debt than 30 years ago. That alone restricts capacity.

And secondly, the rise of China and other rapidly developing states slows growth (and hence money for public spending) as more people compete for global resources.

The power of nation states has weakened. Social media has eroded the forces that bind peoples together, while both actively and passively promoting division. That makes it harder to promote any policy where one set of people (or, indeed, all) need temporary sacrifice for the national good.

He says it like it's a bad thing?

I mean specifically in the context of what he is calling for - to directly enter, create and defend a corridor in Gaza.

At what point do the markets start concluding that maybe US Treasuries aren't all that safe an investment after all?

Plus, even when Trump does the right thing, he invariably does it for the wrong reason. Faulty or fraudulent logic that happens to end up in the right place by chance is not to be praised.

Yes. I think the perceived salience of that discussion was boosted by the fact that many of the early results came in areas where Reform was (is) strong.

But that results bias is precisely the kind of point an informed presenter should be making, rather than letting it set their narrative m

To be fair, that was the exit poll, which was shared by all the broadcasters (and wasn't *that* far out given the uncertainties).

But what the BBC did get badly wrong was not updating that prediction as results came in contradicting it, and going on about the poll long after real results were in.

It's also a benefit offered by quite a lot of employers, so increasing the cost of it will likely result in either that benefit being cut or wage growth being restricted to cover the additional cost.

It doesn't have moral authority. It does, however, have practical power which was the basis on which the UN was built (bad though the situation in the US is at the moment, it's not Stalin's Soviet Union).

Higgins's call would have greater force were Ireland to contribute to it.

It is. It's also something else.

Words can have more than one meaning - and in English, often do.

Just throwing this out there but reversing Trump's tax cuts might cover off scrapping the tariffs given that the tariffs haven't paid for the tax cuts?

The replies to this post, even on here, even moreso on X, are so depressing to me. We live in a world where cities have never been safer and a minority of people are denying themselves a lot of delightful experiences because they’ve gone mad online.

It does when (1) the fall is on that scale, and (2) the measurement is the independent British Crime Survey rather than police statistics.

Yes, that's my point. A decline should produce a negative figure for the relative change.

Shouldn't that first graph be 'relative crime rate', rather than change in crime rate? If the latter then anything above zero would be an increase.

What sort of shops do you think are worth visiting, out of interest, because of all the cities to choose that might be lacking in that respect, I wouldn't have gone for Leeds.

FWIW, I think he probably does have the authority to sack Powell or indeed any Board member. It's political and economic realities which have inhibited presidents in the past.

The Act establishing the Fed allows a president to dismiss on 'cause', which is open to wide legitimate interpretation.

Trump doesn't care about his legal authority. He doesn't have the legal authority to impose tariffs himself: it's not stopping him. He believes his election enables him to run the country like his own personal corporation.

I could well see him sacking the entire board, on claims of 'competence'.

On (3) it's true that Trump hasn't (yet) staged a domestic terrorist attack on which peg to hang both an argument for greater consolidated power and public trust - but then he's only been in office six months this term.

Indeed.

Three quick questions for such political scientists:

1. What would 21st century fascism look like (bearing in mind the diversity of 20th century fascist governments)?

2. How does Putin differ from that?

3. In what meaningful ways is Trump not following the Putin template?