Connect with us

Economics

How one California beach town became Gavin Newsom’s nemesis

Published

on

AN IDYLLIC CITY in swanky Orange County, California, is not where you would expect to encounter a self-professed champion of the proletariat. Huntington Beach was first known for oil (the high school’s mascot is still the Oilers), then for surfing. Yet that is how Gracey Van Der Mark, its Republican mayor, sees herself and her city. A framed copy of a recent Los Angeles Times column suggesting (half facetiously) that Donald Trump should pick her for his vice-president hangs on her office wall. She says other cities are afraid of Gavin Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, “because he’s acting like a tyrant”.

Mr Newsom’s alleged tyranny stems from his administration’s insistence that cities should build more housing, which the state badly needs and which many cities with wealthy residents and scores of beach-front bungalows resent. That is not his only crime, in the eyes of Ms Van Der Mark. Huntington Beach is fighting the state on several fronts, from housing regulations to voting rules to the flying of the gay-pride flag. The city’s ill-advised battles against Mr Newsom are emblematic of the friction between California’s many Republican pockets and the liberal state government; and of the evolution of California’s Republican Party during the Trump era.

Some 41% of Huntington Beach residents are registered Republicans, making them the city’s largest political tribe. But lately the city’s flavour of Republicanism has changed. In 2022 Ms Van Der Mark and several MAGA compatriots ran for the city council as a slate. All were elected, and now serve alongside three Democrats—though local elections there are technically non-partisan. Rhonda Bolton, a Democrat on the council, says the body’s politics have become a poisonous sludge that bears a passing resemblance to America’s House of Representatives.

This is not the first time Huntington Beach and the state, whose government sits in Sacramento, have been at loggerheads over housing. In 2019 the state sued the city for allegedly blocking new development. The trouble this time stems from the city’s failure to approve plans to build housing to meet projected demand, a process that every local government in the state must complete. The state and city sued each other over the matter. The city’s case, arguing that the state cannot force localities to build, was tossed out. The state’s suit is still pending.

The city council put several contentious measures on the primary ballot in March, including one that would introduce voter-ID rules. California’s attorney-general and secretary of state, who is in charge of voting processes, warned the city that such a measure contravenes state law. The measure passed anyway. Another legal battle probably awaits.

Ms Van Der Mark argues that Huntington Beach can set its own housing and voting rules because it is a charter city. A “home rule” provision in California’s constitution holds that such cities, which have adopted a kind of local constitution, can “make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs”. But the state’s constitution does not define “municipal affairs”, leaving the courts to decide what is appropriate. More than a fifth of all cities in California have a charter. But Huntington Beach has become the biggest cheerleader for home rule. “Sacramento is using us as an example for every other city,” says Ms Van Der Mark. On this, at least, the city and state agree.

California Republicans were often more moderate than their eastern peers. As governor, Ronald Reagan favoured some environmental protections. Arnold Schwarzenegger travelled the globe warning about climate change. Yet Mr Trump’s influence has proved too powerful for such moderation to persist.

Ms Bolton says she believes most Huntington Beach residents are more moderate than the council, and will not stand for such chicanery for long. But the election cycle is against her. In November voters will get the chance to oust her and the other Democrats. Ms Van Der Mark is not up for re-election until 2026. She was tickled by the column suggesting that she is Mr Trump’s loyal soldier in Orange County, but insists she will not run for higher office unless she “is needed somewhere”.

Continue Reading

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

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.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

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.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

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.

Continue Reading

Trending