Mongolia's Main Party to Form New Government After PM Ousted
By
Updated on
Save
Mongolia's main political party will form a new government after lawmakers rejected a confidence vote, ousting Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai and exacerbating uncertainty for the nation's economy as it struggles with China's weakening demand for raw materials.
Oyun-Erdene lost the vote early Tuesday in the legislature, getting the support of 44 lawmakers in the live-streamed ballot, short of the 64 he needed. He remains as caretaker leader until the Mongolian People's Party he belongs to picks a new prime minister.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Should Get The Hint That Xi Just Isn't That Into Him
China's President Xi Jinping (R) and U.S. President Donald Trump. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKIFRED DUFOUR/AFP via Getty Images Xi Jinping probably doesn't know whether to be flattered or aggrieved by Donald Trump's late-night rantings about the Chinese leader. Sounding more like a jilted ex than a head of state — or a force to reckon with in negotiations — the U.S. president complained Xi is proving 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' Trump, on social media, sounded sincere enough — as if it just dawned on him that Beijing might not be interested in a bilateral trade deal after all. All this raises almost too many questions to pose here. One: Doesn't Trump recall Xi giving him the talk-to-the-hand treatment the first go around from 2017 to 2021? Another: What about Xi's energy, circa 2025, makes Trump think Xi is anxious for another go? Trump, like any wistful ex, is keeping his options open. He prefaced his 2:17 a.m. Washington-time rant with 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will, but…' It's time that someone on Trump's staff had the courage to tell him that perhaps the most powerful Chinese leader in many decades just isn't into him and his trade tactics. On one level, Xi can be excused for lacking the bandwidth to deal with Trump World's chaos right now. Even before the Trump 2.0 era started on January 20, Asia's biggest economy was grappling with a massive property crisis that's generating deflation. Xi's Communist Party was already facing weak domestic demand and record youth unemployment. Back in November, when Team Xi assumed Kamala Harris would be the next president, Beijing was struggling to stop the national birthrate from falling. It was mulling ways to address a rapidly ageing population. It was devising bigger social safety nets to encourage China's 1.4 billion people to save less and spend more. Pre-Trump 2.0, Beijing was in the throes of trying to reduce several trillions of dollars of local government debt. Before the latest Trump tariffs, Xi's government was working to shift its growth model away from exports and runaway investment to domestic demand-led growth. It was working to reduce the dominance of inefficient state-owned enterprises. It was endeavoring to increase the use of the yuan in global trade and finance. Team Xi is also contending with a notable increase in in-person protests. Especially factory workers getting stiffed as export growth slows. Now, Trump's tariffs, volatility in the dollar and bedlam in the U.S. Treasury market are sending intensifying headwinds China's way. So, yes, a busy time to be the leader of a giant, unbalanced economy directly in the Trumpian crossfire. And the White House thinks now is a good time to drop everything and do a hasty bilateral trade deal? Trade agreements are wildly complicated affairs in the best of times, taking several months, even years. Hence, Xi's strategy of slow-walking the process, one that's worked so far. Delaying talks is all the more rational given the decent odds U.S. courts will ultimately rule against Trump's claim that presidents have tariff powers. Trump, of course, is desperate for a trade deal, any deal, to try to convince Americans that, see, the tariffs are working. His splashy signing ceremony with London doesn't count, since the U.S. has a trade surplus with the United Kingdom. Japan hasn't been as pliant as Trump seemed to expect. And new South Korean President Lee Jae-myung is more Seoul's answer to Bernie Sanders than a kindred spirit keen to work with Trump World. Europe isn't exactly fertile ground for a win. Why would Trump be threatening 50% tariffs on the EU if concessions were forthcoming from the 550-million-person market? The U.S. Trade Representative sending reminder letters to trading partners so they don't forget about the upcoming deadline for talks is telling in itself. If White House phones were ringing with good offers, such embarrassing letters wouldn't need to be sent. Also, if Trump really believed Xi is ready to make big concessions, why would his team risk a deal by going after Chinese students with a ban on visas? China, meanwhile, knows how news this week that it may place an order for hundreds of Airbus aircraft, not Boeing, will have Trump fuming. Little about the last couple of weeks suggests these two economic giants are about to sit down for nuts-and-bolts trade negotiations in good faith. Trump's late-night post might've been his way of reminding Xi that the two men were supposed to catch up via phone this week. They did indeed talk on Thursday. But it still seems like high time Trump took the hint that Xi just isn't that into his trade deal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
So now it's official. The ‘graduate premium' is a myth
Have you ever thought about the main reason why school leavers keep choosing to go to university and higher education (HE) participation rates continue rising? Of course there are many reasons; a chance for young adults to get away from their parents, ease of application and acceptance, it looks more fun than going to work, an interest in the subject… But what is the main driver that underpins society's messaging and ends up channelling 18-year-olds into university rather than the workforce? Well, it's the perception that there is a 'graduate premium'; and put simply, the narrative goes like this – 'Don't worry about the debt, you're going to get paid more to make up for it'. And the HE sector well knows the importance of maintaining the societal belief in the graduate premium to drive up their customer numbers. They are relentless in their efforts, issuing constant public comments, articles and self-commissioned reports, often via sympathetic think-tanks, claiming the limitless powers of HE to deliver a graduate premium to all who enrol. But this positive advertising is starting to contrast starkly with increasing evidence, now in plain sight, of graduates' difficulties getting jobs as well as the low pay on offer of not much above minimum wage. There is a growing realisation that we are burdening too many of our young adults with morale-sapping student debt for their whole working life, with little or no corresponding improvement in their career prospects. There are also concerns that we are building up a dangerous stockpile of student loans that won't be repaid, only for the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Meanwhile, money is flowing freely into the bloated HE sector via unwitting students being used as pawns. The Government has announced a White Paper due out this summer regarding Post-16 Education. So given the importance of the notion of a graduate premium, you would assume that the Government has ensured there is robust informative data to inform policy-making. Well, sadly not. There is only one Government report, the annual Graduate Labour Market Statistics, which attempts to quantify the graduate premium; and my research shows that it is fundamentally flawed. Some will say that the IFS Graduate Lifetime Earnings report from 2020 also 'proves' a graduate premium, but my research argues that it is just as flawed. My findings are already supported by the Royal Statistical Society, and the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has also found a case in my favour and agreed that there is a problem with graduate premium data. The OSR has intervened and forced the hand of the Department for Education (DfE), who admitted in their release today that their figures are misleading – and to such an extent that even though this has been a mainstay of graduate outcome reporting since 2007, they have decided to cease publication. The DfE have agreed that a report demonstrating the difference between the career pay outcomes of those with equivalent A-level results is necessary, and they intend to produce it as part of their LEO data e.g. comparing school leavers with three Cs who attended university and those that did not. But the inadequacy of the data doesn't stop there. Using mathematical modelling, I've found that since we surpassed 30 per cent HE participation as long as 20 years ago, the marginal graduates added – increasingly being drawn from school leavers with relatively lower prior academic attainment – haven't earnt any graduate premium at all on average. Yet this phenomenon isn't explored in official Government statistics. When graduates do earn a premium, there is still the age-old statistical issue that correlation does not prove causation. For the majority of graduates, the job they end up doing will have no meaningful connection to the degree subject itself. So you must question why the official Government statistics keep churning out data that implies that studying for a degree was the main causation reason for the higher earnings, whereas in fact it is more likely their pre-existing attributes such as academic ability and ambition. Furthermore, when there is a link between the degree subject and the graduate's career, did they genuinely need to study academically for three whole years at great cost to themselves beforehand? Couldn't the course have been far shorter? And to what extent could it have been cheaper and more effective for them to start work at 18 and learn from colleagues, undergoing job-based formal and informal training in order to progress? You can often learn far more in three weeks of doing the job than you can in three years of theoretical study. The existing statistics don't explore this at all and by implication see their main role as demonstrating what degree is better than another. They act on the assumption that for non-manual work, everybody should get a 3-year degree before entering the workplace, rather than whether a degree is necessary at all. Until now, these inadequate statistics have allowed the sector to hijack the official figures and mislead the public and Government regarding the benefits of higher education, claiming that 'everybody' will be able to benefit from the supposed average premium. What is needed is root and branch reform of graduate statistics. I believe it would provide compelling evidence that surpassing around 25-30 per cent HE participation was a monumental mistake, and we certainly should never have let it reach the existing 50 per cent. The vicious spiral of never-ending increasing participation is condemning ever more of our young adults to pay huge amounts for unnecessary degrees. The Government's ideologically driven policies are led by a misguided false notion of 'opportunity for all'; but in the hands of a commercially-driven sector it has become a gross exercise in mass exploitation. The only way for this to end is for the Government to introduce a sensible, pragmatic cap on student numbers, calculated based on useful data – not the misleading data currently being produced. Paul Wiltshire is a parent campaigner against Mass HE and is the author of 'Why is the average Graduate Premium falling' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump touts 'very positive' breakthrough with Xi after slamming China for trade violation
President Donald Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday in a lengthy call amid economic and national security friction regarding trade between Washington and Beijing. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal," Trump said in a Thursday Truth Social post. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries." Trump said the conversation focused "almost entirely" on trade, and that Xi invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Trump also said he extended an invitation to Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan. Chinese media first reported the call between the two leaders Thursday, and claimed that the call occurred per Trump's request. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett had told ABC News Sunday that Trump was expected to talk with the Chinese president this week. The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May, and a day after Trump said Xi was "extremely hard to make a deal with" in a Truth Social post. The negotiations led both countries to agree that the U.S. would ramp down its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would cut its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%. But Trump accused China on Friday of not holding up its end of the bargain, although he refrained from disclosing specifics. "The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US," Trump said in a social media post Friday. "So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!" U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Friday in an interview with CNBC that China had failed to lift its non-tariff barriers, as outlined in the deal. "The United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow-rolling their compliance, which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed," Greer said Friday. Meanwhile, China pressed the U.S. to reverse course and address its own mistakes. "China once again urges the US to immediately correct its erroneous actions, cease discriminatory restrictions against China and jointly uphold the consensus reached at the high-level talks in Geneva," Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said in a Friday statement. Meanwhile, Trump's invitation to Xi and Peng to visit the U.S. comes as Trump's administration cracks down on student visa holders in the U.S. and as Trump has threatened to "aggressively" rescind visas of students from China.
