It’s difficult not to see parallels between chaos of US Republican party and UK Conservatives | Adam Boulton

Published

2 years ago

January 6, 2023

admin

Nations and political systems differ greatly but it is difficult not to see parallels between what is happening now in the US Republican party and the recent history of the UK Conservative party.

There is a brutal tussle under way over the direction which should be taken by Anglophone conservatism, as embodied a generation past by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Last year, the turmoil in Britain’s ruling party resulted in three prime ministers in a matter of months, as Tory MPs failed to agree on leaders capable of governing the nation reliably.

The Republican party actually “won” the mid-term elections for the lower House of Congress, taking control from the Democrats.

But as the 118th Congress met for the first time this week, the new majority party failed to agree on their first order of business, who should be their leader, for the first time since 1923, 100 years ago.

Although they share the same title, and preside over proceedings in their house, the US Speaker does not have the same role as the Speaker in the House of Commons.

Like his predecessors, Sir Lindsay Hoyle is expected to be neutral and has abandoned his ties to Labour. By convention the UK Speaker is effectively an incumbent, irrespective of general elections when he or she stands without opposition from the main political parties.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is an entirely partisan figure. In practice they are the leader of the majority party, which makes them the equivalent of prime minister in UK terms.

In the US Constitution the Speaker is second in the line of succession to the Presidency, after the vice president. (Confusingly the Veep is also the presiding officer in the upper house, with the casting vote in the US Senate.)

The likes of Speakers Tip O’Neill, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi have made much of their role as major national political figures.

When there is no Speaker in place, the House of Representatives is what one frustrated congressman this week called “a useless entity”. Its members cannot be sworn in, so they cannot legislate or hold the executive to account. They don’t even have security clearance.

When, as now, the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by the other party, the Speaker of the House is more important than ever as the equivalent to the Leader of the Opposition.

When Kevin McCarthy, an eight-term congressman from California, led his party to victory over the Democrats in the mid-terms by 222 seats to 212, the Republicans might have been expected to stick with his leadership and to install him in the top job.

But no. In 11 painful roll call votes McCarthy failed to get the required overall majority of representatives because 20 members of his own Republican party resolutely refused to back him, including five US Representatives elected for the first time.

Meanwhile the Democrats settled immediately and unanimously on Hakeem Jeffries of New York as their minority leader, replacing Pelosi who has retired. Jeffries is the first African-American to lead a party in the US Congress.

The overwhelming majority of House Republicans – 201 out of 222 – back McCarthy but without most of the 20 holdouts they did not have enough votes to put him over the top on 218.

Nineteen of those blocking McCarthy belong to the right-wing Freedom Caucus. Their motivation is best summed up by the controversial congressman from Florida, Mike Gaetz, who declared “If you want to drain the swamp, you cannot put the biggest alligator in charge”.

“The swamp” is the fetid American version of what British populists like to write-off as the “Westminster bubble”.

Gaetz’s extremist language carries echoes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s pronouncement that Rishi Sunak’s policies are “socialist”.

McCarthy is not a centrist member of the establishment. He courted and promoted candidates belonging to the Tea Party. He hesitated briefly after the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, but within days voted against impeachment and flew to Mar-a-Lago to seek Donald Trump’s endorsement. McCarthy embraced the “big lie” that Trump won in 2020, and voted to challenge the official electors in key states.

If he becomes speaker, McCarthy says his first priority will be to cancel the hiring of 87,000 tax inspectors. He will also block the crucial bipartisan budget measures already agreed in the Senate.

He has promised to change the rules to make it easier to sack a speaker (a bit like the 1922 Committee and votes of no confidence). This eventually won “MY Martin” the backing of Trump on his own Truth Social platform: “He will do a good job and maybe even a GREAT JOB”.

Politically he is not much different from those refusing to back him but they still don’t trust him. Instead they deliberately plunged US politics into chaos, at one stage proposing an alternative candidate, Jim Jordan, who had himself nominated McCarthy.

Partisan Democrats relished their opponents’ plight and tweeted out images of the popcorn they were munching as the drama unfolded.

A critical columnist in The New York Times found it “grimly amusing to see that the party of insurrection can’t even manage the orderly transfer of power to itself”.

But the progressive newspaper took a more serious tone assessing the consequences of the refusenik’s behaviour: “They simply will not relent and join their colleagues even if it is for the greater good of their party, and perhaps the nation. They consider themselves conservative purists who cannot be placated unless all their demands are met – and maybe not even then. Their agenda is mostly to defund, disrupt and dismantle government, not to participate in it.”

The UK’s Conservatives have not disappeared down this rabbit hole. It is difficult to imagine Tory MPs celebrating the removal of metal detector arches, as symbols of oppression rather than security, as some Republicans did this week. Nor do they celebrate the right to bear arms.

Yet such groups as the European Research Group have been willing to use obstructionism and their position as de facto swing voters to force the bulk of their party in a more right-wing direction in policy and personnel matters.

They too have abandoned party loyalty in favour of ideology, allegedly supported by unelected and energised party activists.

On both sides of the Atlantic they have endorsed purges of those they disagree with in what was a “broad church” type of party. Their energy is focussed on fighting within their own party for control. Provided their party can eke out election wins, they disregard those who don’t vote for it.

Whether they call it the swamp or the bubble their suspicion of government and its agencies comes with demands for a smaller state, welfare cutbacks, scepticism about climate change measures, less regulation of business, and curtailed civil rights.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

The essential difference is that a significant minority of Republican representatives think that the best way to achieve their goals is to disrupt and overturn the system while the overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs still want to work within it.

Many Tory MPs disagree profoundly with the right’s atavism but, for self-preservation, they look over their shoulders anxiously before speaking up for One Nation values.

So far those most effective in forcing the Conservatives in a rightward direction have been outsiders. Significantly, in praising the Brexit negotiator Lord Frost this week, Nigel Farage bellowed “now is the time for all good men to leave the Conservative Party”. Farage’s sidekick Richard Tice relaunched their Reform Party.

Last year, the British public suffered the consequences of the unquiet soul of the right. This year the Republicans are already offering another lesson in real time.

US

Stock markets suffer sharp drops after Donald Trump announces sweeping tariffs

Published

1 hour ago

April 4, 2025

admin

Stock markets suffer sharp drops after Donald Trump announces sweeping tariffs

Stock markets around the world fell on Thursday after Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs – with some economists now fearing a recession.

The US president announced tariffs for almost every country – including 10% rates on imports from the UK – on Wednesday evening, sending financial markets reeling.

While the UK’s FTSE 100 closed down 1.55% and the continent’s STOXX Europe 600 index was down 2.67% as of 5.30pm, it was American traders who were hit the most.

Trump tariffs latest: US stock markets tumble

All three of the US’s major markets opened to sharp losses on Thursday morning.

By 8.30pm UK time (3.30pm EST), The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 3.7%, the S&P 500 opened with a drop of 4.4%, and the Nasdaq composite was down 5.6%.

Compared to their values when Donald Trump was inaugurated, the three markets were down around 5.6%, 8.7% and 14.4%, respectively, according to LSEG.

Worst one-day losses since COVID

As Wall Street trading ended at 9pm in the UK, two indexes had suffered their worst one-day losses since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The S&P 500 fell 4.85%, the Nasdaq dropped 6%, and the Dow Jones fell 4%.

It marks Nasdaq’s biggest daily percentage drop since March 2020 at the start of COVID, and the largest drop for the Dow Jones since June 2020.

‘Trust in President Trump’

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN earlier in the day that Mr Trump was “doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term”.

“To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump,” she told the broadcaster, adding: “This is indeed a national emergency… and it’s about time we have a president who actually does something about it.”

Later, the US president told reporters as he left the White House that “I think it’s going very well,” adding: “The markets are going to boom, the stock is going to boom, the country is going to boom.”

He later said on Air Force One that the UK is “happy” with its tariff – the lowest possible levy of 10% – and added he would be open to negotiations if other countries “offer something phenomenal”.

Economist warns of ‘spiral of doom’

The turbulence in the markets from Mr Trump’s tariffs “just left everybody in shock”, Garrett Melson, portfolio strategist at Natixis Investment Managers Solutions in Boston, told Reuters.

He added that the economy could go into recession as a result, saying that “a lot of the pain, will probably most acutely be felt in the US and that certainly would weigh on broader global growth as well”.

Meanwhile, chief investment officer at St James’s Place Justin Onuekwusi said that international retaliation is likely, even as “it’s clear countries will think about how to retaliate in a politically astute way”.

He warned: “Significant retaliation could lead to a tariff ‘spiral of doom’ that could be the growth shock that drags us into recession.”

It comes as the UK government published a long list of US products that could be subject to reciprocal tariffs – including golf clubs and golf balls.

Running to more than 400 pages, the list is part of a four-week-long consultation with British businesses and suggests whiskey, jeans, livestock, and chemical components.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Thursday that the US president had launched a “new era” for global trade and that the UK will respond with “cool and calm heads”.

It also comes as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a 25% tariff on all American-imported vehicles that are not compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal.

He added: “The 80-year period when the United States embraced the mantle of global economic leadership, when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect and championed the free and open exchange of goods and services, is over. This is a tragedy.”

US

Trump’s tariffs are about something more than economics: power

Published

13 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump's tariffs are about something more than economics: power

Tanking stock markets, collapsing world orders, devastating trade wars; economists with their hair ablaze are scrambling to keep up.

But as we try to make sense of Donald Trumps’s tariff tsunami, economic theory only goes so far. In the end this surely is about something more primal.

Power.

Understanding that may be crucial to how the world responds.

Yes, economics helps explain the impact. The world’s economy has after all shifted on its axis, the way it’s been run for decades turned on its head.

Instead of driving world trade, America is creating a trade war. We will all feel the impact.

Donald Trump says he is settling scores, righting wrongs. America has been raped, looted and pillaged by the world trading system.

But don’t be distracted by the hyperbole – and if you think this is about economics alone, you may be missing the point.

Above all, tariffs give Donald Trump power. They strike fear into allies and enemies, from governments to corporations.

This is a president who runs his presidency like a medieval emperor or mafia don.

It is one reason why since his election we have seen what one statesman called a conga line of sycophants make their way to the White House, from world leaders to titans of industry.

The conga line will grow longer as they now redouble their efforts hoping to special treatment from Trump’s tariffs. Sir Keir Starmer among them.

President Trump’s using similar tactics at home, deploying presidential power to extract concessions and deter dissent in corporate America, academia and the US media. Those who offer favours are spared punishment.

His critics say he seeks a form power for the executive or presidential branch of government that the founding fathers deliberately sought to prevent.

Whether or not that is true, the same playbook of divide and rule through intimidation can now be applied internationally. Thanks to tariffs

Each country will seek exceptions but on Trump’s terms. Those who retaliate may meet escalation.

This is the unforgiving calculus for governments including our own plotting their next moves.

The temptation will be to give Trump whatever he wants to spare their economies, but there is a jeopardy that compounds the longer this goes on.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian prime minister who coined the conga line comparison, put it this way: “Pretty much all the international leaders I have seen that have sucked up to Trump have been run over. The reality is if you suck up to bullies, whether it’s global affairs or in the playground, you just get more bullying.”

Trading partners may be able to mitigate the impact of these tariffs through negotiation, but that may only encourage this unorthodox president to demand ever more?

Ultimately the world will need a more reliable superpower than that.

In the hands of such a president, America cannot be counted on.

When it comes to security, stability and prosperity, allies will need to fend for themselves.

And they will need new friends. If Washington can’t be relied on, Beijing beckons.

America First will, more and more, mean America on its own.

US

‘A genius actor’, ‘firecracker’, and ‘my friend’: Tributes paid to Top Gun star Val Kilmer

Published

13 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

'A genius actor', 'firecracker', and 'my friend': Tributes paid to Top Gun star Val Kilmer

Actors, directors and celebrity friends have paid tribute to Val Kilmer, after he died aged 65.

The California-born star of Top Gun, Batman and Heat died of pneumonia on Tuesday night in Los Angeles, his daughter Mercedes told the Associated Press.

She said Kilmer was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2014 but later recovered.

Tributes flooded in after reports broke of the actor’s death, with No Country For Old Men star Josh Brolin among the first to share their memories.

He wrote on Instagram: “See ya, pal. I’m going to miss you. You were a smart, challenging, brave, uber-creative firecracker. There’s not a lot left of those.

“I hope to see you up there in the heavens when I eventually get there. Until then, amazing memories, lovely thoughts.”

Kyle Maclachlan, who co-starred with Kilmer in the 1991 biopic The Doors, wrote on social media: “You’ll always be my Jim. See you on the other side my friend.”

Michael Mann, who directed Kilmer in 1995’s Heat, also paid tribute in a statement, saying: “I always marvelled at the range, the brilliant variability within the powerful current of Val’s possessing and expressing character.

“After so many years of Val battling disease and maintaining his spirit, this is tremendously sad news.”

Heat co-star Danny Trejo also called Kilmer “a great actor, a wonderful person, and a dear friend of mine” on Instagram.

Cher, who once dated the actor, said on X that “U Were Funny, crazy, pain in the ass, GREAT FRIEND… BRILLIANT as Mark Twain, BRAVE here during ur sickness”.

Lifelong friend and director of Twixt, Francis Ford Coppola said: “Val Kilmer was the most talented actor when in his High School, and that talent only grew greater throughout his life.

“He was a wonderful person to work with and a joy to know – I will always remember him.”

The Top Gun account on X also said it was remembering Kilmer, who starred as Iceman in both the 1986 original and 2022 sequel, and “whose indelible cinematic mark spanned genres and generations”.