Connect with us

Economics

Is deploying soldiers on New York’s subway as mad as it seems?

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

NEW YORKERS have seen it all in the subway. They watch in appreciation as a rat carries a slice of pizza down a staircase. They feel powerless when someone in the throes of a mental-health crisis shouts and staggers on a subway platform. They are uplifted or perhaps annoyed when “Showtime” dancers backflip and hang from car handles and poles. Yet the recent arrival of armed soldiers near subway turnstiles has been unnerving.

Last week Kathy Hochul, New York’s Democratic governor, deployed 750 members of the National Guard as well as 250 state police to assist New York City’s police (NYPD) in searching bags at some subway stations. It is part of a plan aimed at improving subway safety, along with adding more cameras and implementing a pilot scheme to treat those suffering severely from mental illness.

Violent crime in the city has declined so far this year, but crime on the subway is a different story: it rose by 47% in January, year over year. Most of that was down to more thefts. The vast majority of the system’s 4m daily riders travel without incident. However, the abundance of individuals in crisis, coupled with some high-profile attacks, has raised alarms. A conductor’s neck was recently slashed. A woman lost her feet after a man pushed her onto the tracks. A teenager fatally shot a man in a Bronx station. Eric Adams, the city’s mayor, deployed 1,000 cops to the subway, at great expense and with some success.

Ms Hochul decided it wasn’t enough. There is a long history of political point-scoring between New York City mayors and state governors. In this case Ms Hochul may have been motivated partly by labour concerns and cost. After the attack on the conductor some employees staged what looked like a work stoppage that caused delays. The union asked for more transit police. The governor chose soldiers, who are cheaper. The backlash was immediate and came from all sides. “Our transit system is not a ‘war’ zone!” John Chell, NYPD’s chief of patrol, wrote on X. Others are worried about civil-rights violations.

When Henry Smart of John Jay College of Criminal Justice first heard about the National Guard being activated in New York, he wondered, “did something really bad happen?”. The National Guard is a state-based military unit. Members are part of the army’s reserve and can be deployed overseas, as they were regularly during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but these days they are typically activated by state governors in an emergency. During the covid-19 pandemic they assisted with testing. During blizzards they clear snow and rescue people in danger. “We are efficient and task-orientated,” says Mr Smart, a 15-year veteran of the Maryland National Guard. No better crew can fill a sandbag. But this is far from an emergency. And the National Guard is not a camouflaged crime-fighting force. It is not even permitted to make arrests.

Militarising crime fighting is seldom a good idea. “Deploying troops to the subway indicates we’ve lost a battle that we actually are winning,” says Danny Pearlstein, of Riders Alliance, an advocacy group. It tells New Yorkers that we are in a “dire state of affairs”, adds Donna Lieberman, head of the New York Civil Liberties Union when, in fact, the city remains one of the safest of its size in America. Jumaane Williams, the city’s ombudsman, wrote on X that given the political consensus against the deployment, “you would think there would be at least a rethinking.”  So far Ms Hochul is holding firm, though she has at least stopped soldiers carrying long-rifles.

Rather than looking on aghast, some other cities are regarding Ms Hochul’s decision to send in the troops with curiosity. Transit unions in Chicago and Philadelphia are calling on the National Guard to be deployed on their troubled systems. Cherelle Parker, Philadelphia’s new mayor, has promised to beef up police patrols. So far, she and other local lawmakers do not want the National Guard involved. They are right to be wary. The theatrical use of soldiers does not stop crime.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

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