Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Slender, high-spirited and young, at least by the sagging standards of American politics, Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, and Chris Sununu, the current governor of New Hampshire, make a dynamic team as they barnstorm his state in advance of its primary on January 23rd. “What better place to meet the next president of the United States than in a candy shop,” boomed Mr Sununu, grinning, as he introduced Ms Haley recently to a gaggle of constituents in Chutters sweet store in Littleton, in the White Mountains. Smiling as brightly as her ally, she reeled off a list of policy objectives before warning that America could not hope to move forward with either Joe Biden or Donald Trump as president. “You can’t do it if you’ve got two 80-year-olds as the choice of where we’re gonna go,” she said.
That is the essence of her argument as Ms Haley tries, after Mr Trump’s thumping victory in the Iowa caucus, to block his march back to the Republican nomination. Ms Haley came in a close third there to Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, but both were out of hailing range of Mr Trump. The next day, her campaign began running a new advertisement in New Hampshire saying that Mr Trump and Mr Biden were America’s most disliked politicians, “consumed by chaos, negativity and grievances of the past”.
Yet the paradox of Ms Haley’s candidacy is that although she looks like the party’s future she, more than Mr Trump, can sound like its past. While Mr Trump continues to revise Republicanism, Ms Haley wants to return the party to its pre-Trump principles, to when it at least made a more substantial pretence of caring about cutting debt, reforming entitlement programmes and containing Russia, not to mention being polite and not getting indicted.
Though Mr Trump may have stolen Ronald Reagan’s campaign slogan (“Let’s make America great again”), he has otherwise shown little deference to the values Reagan laid down. In a sign of how Mr Trump has upended the party, and of his lingering anxiety about Ms Haley, he is running an ad in New Hampshire attacking her as wanting to cut Social Security, traditionally the kind of thing Democrats say Republicans are out to do.
There is a whiff of nostalgia in the very way Ms Haley is campaigning, not just in her commitment to retail politics but in the company she keeps. In 1988 another Governor Sununu—John, this Sununu’s father—rescued George H.W. Bush after he came in third in Iowa, delivering a victory that propelled him to the White House. “We’re copying a few pages out of that playbook,” Mr Sununu acknowledges, after snagging a chocolate bar from one of Chutters’s giant jars. “But only in that it’s tried and true.”
He argues that his state’s politics still depend on activating networks in towns such as Littleton, and that if Ms Haley, whom he endorsed last month, beats Mr Trump in New Hampshire, and then in her home state of South Carolina, “everything would flip upside down on him very, very quickly.” That is a very long shot but somehow, borne along on Mr Sununu’s stream of enthusiastic patter, it starts to sound more than barely plausible.
Mr Sununu, who is 49, has been elected to four consecutive two-year terms, most recently by more than 15 points, in a state whose two senators and two representatives are all Democrats. In his party he is a relative moderate on social issues, including abortion rights, but he boasts of being the most fiscally conservative governor in the country. He has little patience with the argument that Mr Trump has fundamentally changed the Republican Party, insisting he has merely hijacked it.
Mr Sununu thinks the anger of Americans over the failures of “elitists in Washington”, rather than any policies, led them to support Mr Trump in 2016 as a disrupter, and now as a victim. “He provides no leadership, no guidance, no basis in the Republican fundamentals of being fiscally conservative or limited government, or any of that,” Mr Sununu says. “His unique skill is making people feel like he’s sharing their troubles and chaos, right?” But Mr Trump is “using their anger for his own personal benefit. He’s not going to help them, at all. He didn’t before.” He fears a Republican wipeout at other levels of government if Mr Trump is re-elected.
He predicts that once Mr Trump leaves the scene—after a Haley victory, or further down the road—the old dynamics in the party will reassert themselves, “with no one individual trying to redefine where the party goes”.
Courage about conviction
This may sound wishful, or even delusional, particularly in light of Mr Trump’s showing in Iowa. But the picture remains more complicated than that. Less than 15% of registered Republicans turned out, and of them almost half preferred a different candidate from Mr Trump, a quasi-incumbent. More broadly, Republican governors—not just in New Hampshire but in states like Georgia, Ohio and even Iowa—are succeeding not as Trump acolytes, but with more conventionally conservative and pragmatic Republican politics. Congressional Republicans, particularly in the House, are falling in line behind Mr Trump, but Mr Sununu insists that is only because they need him to raise campaign money. He thinks they will also revert to previous form when “they won’t have this emperor, this, you know, this dictator, if you will”.
Maybe. For all his criticism of Mr Trump, Mr Sununu, a fierce opponent of Mr Biden, has also said he would support Mr Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee, even if he is convicted of a felony. Mr Sununu insists he was engaging in a “hypothetical” for “shock value”, to persuade Republicans they should not rely on the courts. “If you think Trump is a threat to democracy, then get up and participate in the democratic process and vote him out,” he says. “It happens in the primary.” But if it does not happen in the primary, conservatives such as Mr Sununu will have to ask themselves a hard question: whether they will really save their party by helping Mr Trump burn it down. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter examining the state of American democracy, and read other articles about the elections of 2024.
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