Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
More people live in Florida than in New York state, where the budget is nearly twice as big. From kindergarten through high school New York spends more than twice as much as Florida to educate each pupil, yet eighth-graders in both states score comparably on standardised tests, and Florida achieves higher high-school graduation rates, particularly for black and Hispanic students. Florida is building homes faster and, along with cheaper housing, it has a higher rate of home ownership and a lower incidence of homelessness than New York. At 3.1% in December, the unemployment rate was a third lower in Florida.
Florida has its relative demerits, including more people without health insurance and a higher rate of homicide. But for its services the state charges its citizens no income tax, whereas New York imposes some of the highest rates in the country. Corporate taxes are also lower in Florida. Overall, Americans are concluding the balance favours Florida: its population grew by another 365,000 last year, while New York’s shrank by 102,000, continuing a four-year trend.
All of which is to say that Democrats should be grateful that Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, for reasons of conviction or perceived political interest, proved to be such a ferocious culture warrior. Had he been capable of running his state, and running for president, as a sunny champion of low-cost, effective government—the kind of candidate for whom reasonable people in both parties yearn—who knows how far he might have gone, and how little hope Democrats in Florida might have of ever clawing their way back to political daylight.
True, they are in a deep hole. From an advantage of 260,000 registered voters when Donald Trump took office in 2017, Democrats were trailing by almost 800,000 by December. That swing came thanks to bad candidates and feeble organising in the face of a disciplined Republican operation. Failure begat more failure as donors closed their chequebooks. Republicans now hold all elected statewide offices and a supermajority in the legislature.
But Florida politicos of both parties think Mr DeSantis weakened himself with his oafish presidential bid. Because of Florida’s term limits, he cannot run for governor again and so has less political leverage than he once did. In January Democrats flipped a state-House district in central Florida that a Republican carried easily in 2022. The Democrat there, a navy veteran, stressed bread-and-butter issues and protecting the right to abortion, whereas his opponent inveighed against “the woke mob”. Democrats also did the hard work to turn out the vote that they had been neglecting.
Democrats were further heartened by the uproar last month after a teacher in Miami-Dade County sent a permission slip home asking parents to authorise the reading of “a book written by an African-American”, as part of Black History Month. Mr DeSantis testily insisted no such slip was required under his parental-notification law, known as the “Stop WOKE Act”. But other news reports have described the frustration of teachers and parents over having to fill out new forms for pupils to hear from speakers such as a Holocaust survivor.
The politics of abortion will supply the surest indication of whether one-party rule has led Mr DeSantis to overreach, as Democrats have at times in Democratic states like New York. In his first term Mr DeSantis signed a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. After he got the supermajority in 2022 and set his sights on the White House, he signed a six-week ban. Neither is in effect because the state Supreme Court is reviewing the 15-week ban. If the court upholds it, the six-week limit would take effect a month later. Polling suggests even most Republicans oppose it.
Early this year opponents of the ban produced the 891,000 signatures required to put a referendum on the ballot this autumn to protect abortion until about 24 weeks. They overcame new obstacles imposed by the legislature by mobilising some 10,000 volunteers. The referendum is also before the state Supreme Court.
Florida is not a swing state this year, though President Joe Biden will probably try to bait Mr Trump into spending money there. State Democrats are looking beyond Mr Biden and Mr Trump. (Isn’t it reassuring that some people are?) They want to rebuild their voter base and political bench with an eye to 2028 and beyond. With north Florida solidly red, the state party is focusing on central and south Florida, in particular the most populous county, Miami-Dade. In a sign of how serious the Democrats’ problems are, and of how seriously the leadership takes them, the state party leader in early March suspended three local party chairmen she thought were underperforming, including in Miami-Dade.
Night and Dade
The party is embarking on a voter-registration drive in Miami-Dade. Operatives point to one Democratic candidate for county office there whose father was kidnapped by leftist Colombian guerrillas, and another whose family fled from Cuba, as evidence that Democrats have learned from their damaging dalliance with Bernie-Sanders-style “socialism”. They are also resisting putting causes like LGBTQ rights front and centre, having seen how that can backfire. “All we’ve done in the last two years is take the trans community and, worse, trans kids, and put them on the radar of Republicans to be shot at,” says one experienced Democratic strategist. He says Democrats instead need to emphasise protecting freedoms for everyone—and stop using terms like “LatinX”, which irritates many Latino voters, among others.
Republican electoral successes in New York have prompted Democratic leaders to press back against some excesses of their own one-party rule. Whether or not Florida ever becomes a presidential swing state again, its citizens would benefit from a return to the intense, respectful partisan competition that provided Mr DeSantis with the happy story he did such a poor job of telling. ■
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago