Latest news with #TheLondonStandard
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariffs seek to restore American exceptionalism
In response to duties imposed on foreign goods by the U.S. government, a leading international publication called out the U.S. policy, predicting that political and economic upheaval would follow. That dire prediction — made by The London Standard in 1896 (at that time known as The Standard) — did not quite pan out. Instead, the U.S. economy enjoyed a renaissance, ushering in an era of financial prosperity that has continued to this day. Although today's financial dynamics differ from those of that time, one core principle has remained the same — a fundamental reality that entwines President William McKinley's philosophy with that of President Trump. That is American exceptionalism — the idea that the American people are capable of so much more than what the naysayers believe of them. Since free trade began in earnest during the 1990s with NAFTA, this aspect of U.S. economics became a sort of holy grail for politicians. The allure of cheap goods was deemed too great to tamper with. It wasn't something to be questioned, from the left or the right — so much so, that many people didn't even know that American companies were competing at a steep disadvantage overseas. However, although they may not have known it, many Americans were feeling it. Millions of Americans in flyover regions were hurt by the rapid deindustrialization caused by these agreements. U.S. companies had their growth stunted by unfair trade practices that were being employed against them. And the fact that those practices were in place is indisputable. Economists can perhaps explain away trade deficits as normal economic activity (in some cases), but not trade barriers harming American companies. Charging a tariff ten times what the U.S. charged on cars (China), non-acceptance of U.S. safety standards for automobiles (Japan and South Korea), and the Value Added Tax, in which foreign products were able to retail at a significant discount over their American counterparts, were all part of a systematic squeeze on U.S. companies competing in foreign markets. It was the outcome of other nations taking advantage of American politicians looking the other way. The system may have been working, but it certainly wasn't thriving. As the sole superpower in a rapidly expanding global economy, the past decades represented a chance for the U.S. to corner the market, to solidify its dominance and grow its prosperity. Instead, it satisfied itself with mediocrity, settling for limited growth in exchange for cheap imports. Trump set out to change that — to throw off the shackles of American defeatism, and to recapture the magic of American exceptionalism. He recognized our enormous financial advantage of more than $10 trillion in nominal gross domestic product — and that is only over our closest competitor, China. His business instincts realized that we were squandering one of our greatest national assets, our economic leverage, instead being exploited by friend and foe alike. Free trade had become free for everyone except the U.S. Disrupting a system can come at a cost, and it is fair for there to be a discussion as to how best to do it. But it must be done. Because while we can get by without this, the economy can chug along without this drastic change, that isn't the American way. We didn't win World War II, send a man to the moon and emerge as the world's sole superpower simply by getting by, just by being good enough. We did it by being exceptional. And that should be the standard we continue to strive for. With the first trade deal of this tariff era now taking shape, American exceptionalism appears to be within reach once again. The agreement with the U.K. promises to open new markets to American goods, create a fair playing field for American companies competing in Great Britain, and increase British investment on American shores. This is more than a simple trade pact; it is the first step into a new age of American opportunity and prosperity. As President Trump puts it, 'our best days are yet to come.' Let's hope his words prove true as his trade policies usher in yet another great American century. Menachem Spiegel is an author and yeshiva student. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal's Future View, The Star-Ledger and The Jerusalem Post. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs seek to restore American exceptionalism
In response to duties imposed on foreign goods by the U.S. government, a leading international publication called out the U.S. policy, predicting that political and economic upheaval would follow. That dire prediction — made by The London Standard in 1896 (at that time known as The Standard) — did not quite pan out. Instead, the U.S. economy enjoyed a renaissance, ushering in an era of financial prosperity that has continued to this day. Although today's financial dynamics differ from those of that time, one core principle has remained the same — a fundamental reality that entwines President William McKinley's philosophy with that of President Trump. That is American exceptionalism — the idea that the American people are capable of so much more than what the naysayers believe of them. Since free trade began in earnest during the 1990s with NAFTA, this aspect of U.S. economics became a sort of holy grail for politicians. The allure of cheap goods was deemed too great to tamper with. It wasn't something to be questioned, from the left or the right — so much so, that many people didn't even know that American companies were competing at a steep disadvantage overseas. However, although they may not have known it, many Americans were feeling it. Millions of Americans in flyover regions were hurt by the rapid deindustrialization caused by these agreements. U.S. companies had their growth stunted by unfair trade practices that were being employed against them. And the fact that those practices were in place is indisputable. Economists can perhaps explain away trade deficits as normal economic activity (in some cases), but not trade barriers harming American companies. Charging a tariff ten times what the U.S. charged on cars (China), non-acceptance of U.S. safety standards for automobiles (Japan and South Korea), and the Value Added Tax, in which foreign products were able to retail at a significant discount over their American counterparts, were all part of a systematic squeeze on U.S. companies competing in foreign markets. It was the outcome of other nations taking advantage of American politicians looking the other way. The system may have been working, but it certainly wasn't thriving. As the sole superpower in a rapidly expanding global economy, the past decades represented a chance for the U.S. to corner the market, to solidify its dominance and grow its prosperity. Instead, it satisfied itself with mediocrity, settling for limited growth in exchange for cheap imports. Trump set out to change that — to throw off the shackles of American defeatism, and to recapture the magic of American exceptionalism. He recognized our enormous financial advantage of more than $10 trillion in nominal gross domestic product — and that is only over our closest competitor, China. His business instincts realized that we were squandering one of our greatest national assets, our economic leverage, instead being exploited by friend and foe alike. Free trade had become free for everyone except the U.S. Disrupting a system can come at a cost, and it is fair for there to be a discussion as to how best to do it. But it must be done. Because while we can get by without this, the economy can chug along without this drastic change, that isn't the American way. We didn't win World War II, send a man to the moon and emerge as the world's sole superpower simply by getting by, just by being good enough. We did it by being exceptional. And that should be the standard we continue to strive for. With the first trade deal of this tariff era now taking shape, American exceptionalism appears to be within reach once again. The agreement with the U.K. promises to open new markets to American goods, create a fair playing field for American companies competing in Great Britain, and increase British investment on American shores. This is more than a simple trade pact; it is the first step into a new age of American opportunity and prosperity. As President Trump puts it, 'our best days are yet to come.' Let's hope his words prove true as his trade policies usher in yet another great American century. Menachem Spiegel is an author and yeshiva student. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal's Future View, The Star-Ledger and The Jerusalem Post.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Can we fix our broken prison system? ...The Standard podcast
Listen here on your chosen podcast platform. On the day that a package of fundamental reforms to the justice system is announced, The London Standard's Courts Correspondent Tristan Kirk reports on the action. And in part two, we explore why Clarkson's Farm has proved to be Prime Video's most successful original series of all time, with Commissioning Editor and Culture Writer Vicky Jessop.
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
As Jane Austen's Sister, Keeley Hawes Keeps a Controlled Burn
Being cast in the mini-series 'Miss Austen' began Keeley Hawes's first venture into the Jane Austen-verse. Hawes has a résumé thick with period pieces but, perhaps surprisingly, she had never done a screen adaptation of Austen's work — a veritable cottage industry in Britain since the late 1930s. 'Of course, my husband played Mr. Darcy, so I feel like we've been in that world,' Hawes said, referring to the 'Succession' star Matthew Macfadyen, who appeared in the 2005 film version of the classic Regency-era novel 'Pride and Prejudice.' 'I was delighted to join in the Austen world, and especially to do it like this because it's not one that has been done,' she continued. 'But it feels like part of the canon.' Indeed, Hawes is sneaking in through a side door: In the four-part 'Miss Austen,' which premieres on Sunday as part of the PBS series 'Masterpiece,' she plays a fictionalized version of Cassandra, Jane's older sister and a somewhat controversial figure because she burned most of the writer's letters. Like the historical novel by Gill Hornby on which it is based, the show, adapted by Andrea Gibb, speculates on what led Cassandra to her fateful act and features some very Austen-like romantic subplots. A key development cleverly brings together a friend of Cassandra's played by Rose Leslie and Jane's posthumous novel 'Persuasion.' Though less known to mainstream viewers in the United States, Hawes, 49, has long been a familiar presence in British living rooms, with roles dating to the late 1980s. Her greatest hits are almost exclusively from television — in 2021, she was anointed 'the queen of British telly' by The London Standard — starting in an era when, as she put it, 'people could be quite snobby about TV.' 'Yes, I bided my time,' she added dryly during a recent visit to New York. 'Now we live in a world where Meryl Streep does TV shows and Robert De Niro is on posters for a TV show.' Given her immense range and versatility, and her near constant churn, Hawes is, in many respects, still a character actor at heart, a proper trouper with a decided lack of pretension or preciousness about the work. And yet over the past decade, she has emerged as an in-demand star with the requisite presence to carry a series. Her role as Cassandra is the latest example: a part that is both unshowy and commanding. 'She's been a very, very important part of a lot of great ensembles,' Christine Langan, an executive producer of 'Miss Austen,' said in a recent video call. 'But she also has total lead-actress capacity. Her face as Miss Austen has become so symbolic of the show.' Hawes spent 10 years at the Sylvia Young Theater School in London, where she enrolled at age 9. (Classmates included the future Spice Girl Emma Bunton, better known as Baby Spice.) Her screen appearances quickly began piling up. For someone who would become a defining face of British television, it made sense that she would turn up in music videos for era-defining bands of the Britpop music craze, including Pulp, Suede and James. Her breakthrough came in the early 2000s, with the three-episode historical drama 'Tipping the Velvet' and the espionage series 'Spooks' (retitled 'MI-5' in the United States), on whose set she met Macfadyen. Major roles since then include a prickly detective in the procedural 'Line of Duty,' a warmly charismatic 1930s matriarch in 'The Durrells in Corfu,' and a calculating, ambitious home secretary in the sexy Netflix thriller 'Bodyguard.' 'I have been watching and admiring Keeley for so many years now,' Leslie said in an email. 'I first saw her onscreen in 'Spooks' and she had always struck me as an incredibly versatile and brilliant actor,' adding that when she decided to sign up for 'Miss Austen,' 'the opportunity to work opposite her was a ginormous pull.' If there is one constant in Hawes's career, it's that she works constantly. When asked what she had wrapped before starting 'Miss Austen,' Hawes froze. 'Oh, my God,' she said. A pause. 'Actually, I can't remember. I did then go on to do 'The Assassin' for Amazon,' she continued, referring to a thriller due later this year in which she portrays a retired killer with a son played by Freddie Highmore. 'It's a glossy assassin, is what I would say,' she added with a laugh. 'I'm shooting people because I have to for my own survival, not because I'm enjoying it.' Her newly announced next project is yet another hairpin turn: Hawes will star as a nun in love with a priest played by Paapa Essiedu in a coming Channel 4 drama from Jack Thorne ('Adolescence'). Hawes seems to relish the whiplash — maybe because she is not, as she said, 'a Method actor — I'm able to remove myself completely.' The continuous pivoting between vastly different roles also makes it hard for her to be pigeonholed. 'What you get with Keeley is someone who's really all about the character and all about serving the character and isn't going to get hung up on things that maybe other actors would be insecure about,' Jed Mercurio, the creator of 'Line of Duty' and 'Bodyguard,' said in a video interview. 'She doesn't have that insecurity because she knows she can execute.' Mercurio alludes to a certain quality of effectiveness and capability, which is also found in Cassandra Austen, a character whose mother describes her as having 'a surfeit of competence.' Hawes was quick to laugh off the suggestion that this reflected her own personality. 'I really think it's something people see in me,' she said, 'because I never think I know what I'm doing.' Yet she sounded a little different a few minutes later as she described her growing taste for working behind the scenes. ('My husband can't think of anything worse,' she joked.) She created her own television production company, Buddy Club, in 2019 (credits include the mini-series 'Honour' and 'Crossfire'), and she is an executive producer of 'Miss Austen,' which Masterpiece commissioned and co-produced. (It was broadcast in Britain by the BBC.) 'I want things to be smooth,' Hawes said. 'I like to organize the hell out of everything. It's quite difficult. I'm not controlling, I don't think, but I like to have a certain amount of control.' In person, she has an allure and charm that feel timeless, which may help explain why she is equally convincing in both period and contemporary works. Watching her go through the glamorous monotony of a photo shoot, it felt as if Nora Charles from 'The Thin Man' had somehow beamed into a modern Manhattan loft. 'She's very, very elegant and striking, beautiful, but she can really shape-shift — time, social levels,' Langan said. 'She's like a strong liquid, like mercury.' Langan added: 'She's just so kind of capable in so many different ways that she disappears into her roles.' Yet if Hawes is on some level chameleonic, she manages also to eschew both the showy parts (no prosthetics, no gaining or losing huge amounts of weight) and the pseudo-humble roles that beg attention to their modesty. Her performances tend to lean on intimacy and small details. In 'Miss Austen,' for example, Cassandra keeps her feelings close. Her main expression is a tight, controlled smile that might mean 'You beast!' in one scene, and 'Do go on' in another. Asked to elaborate on technique, though, Hawes is good at deflecting. She said that portraying Cassandra was 'so much fun' and then turned immediately to discussing her castmates. 'The playing of any character is much more about what the other actors are doing,' she said. 'So much of acting is listening and reacting to the other people in the scenes.' An actress might be inclined to start thinking about legacy after decades on screens. Given that Hawes's career is still building momentum, it is perhaps unsurprising that she looks at sources close to home when considering her own. Her character Cassandra — and by extension 'Miss Austen' — is deeply concerned with ideas about the things we leave behind: How will her family be remembered? What is a successful life? Hawes had an immediate answer to this line of inquiry. For some people, legacy might mean their work, while for others it might mean something entirely different, she said. For her, it was 'having children.' She has three, the oldest of whom is an elementary schoolteacher. 'That feels like my legacy, I suppose,' she said. 'Anything can be your legacy.'
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Helen Mirren Claims The James Bond Franchise Was 'Born Out Of Profound Sexism'
Dame Helen Mirren has expressed her dissatisfaction with the portrayal of women in the James Bond film series, stating that it was "born out of profound sexism." Helen Mirren, however, shared her admiration for the various actors who have portrayed the iconic role over the years, revealing that she's a "massive fan" of former Bond actor Pierce Brosnan. Mirren has criticized the long-running James Bond films for how women are portrayed. The "Anna" actress sat down in a recent interview with the U.K. newspaper The London Standard, stating that their roles were "born out of profound sexism." "The whole series of James Bond, it was not my thing," Mirren said. "It really wasn't. I never liked James Bond. I never liked the way women were in James Bond." The 79-year-old actress also mentioned that she wouldn't like to see a woman take on the titular spy role anytime soon because she'd rather focus on real-life examples of how women have shown courageous traits. "The whole concept of James Bond is drenched and born out of profound sexism," Mirren stated, adding that "women have always been a major and incredibly important part of the Secret Service, they always have been." She continued, "If you hear about what women did in the French Resistance, they're amazingly, unbelievably courageous. So I would tell real stories about extraordinary women who've worked in that world." Although she may not like the storyline as it concerns women, Mirren has nothing against the actors that has portrayed the role over the years. The "Fast X" actress has a number of connections with the series as her late cousin Tania Mallet starred as Tilly Masterson, the sister of Bond girl Jill, in the 1964 installment "Goldfinger." She also stars in the new Paramount+ series "MobLand" with former Bond actor Pierce Brosnan. Elsewhere, in her chat with the news outlet, she mentioned that she is "a massive fan" of Brosnan, who starred as 007 in four movies from 1995 to 2002. "Obviously, he's gorgeous and everything, and I think he's fabulous in MobLand, but he also happens to be one of the nicest people you'll ever have the pleasure to work with," she added. Mirren also shared that Daniel Craig, the latest actor to play the titular spy, is "a very lovely gracious person." Mirren seemingly knows a thing or two about sexism as she faced it a lot at the budding stage of her screen career. It was common practice for reviews at the time to praise her "voluptuous" performance or say she was "bursting with grace" on stage. One such moment was an old interview with Sir Michael Parkinson in 1975, in which he asked her whether or not her "equipment" prevents her from being taken seriously. "Because serious actresses can't have big bosoms, is that what you mean?" she retorted before rightfully putting Parkinson in his place. Reminiscing on the blowback from that interview, Mirren said she was "the only person who got criticized for that interview." She recalled that this kind of sexism "bothered me very much at the time because my ambition was to be a classical actress. I didn't want to be a movie star. I didn't want to be a TV star." Mirren noted that she wanted to be a "classical actress" but felt "like I was carrying this thing on my back. That it was kind of attached to me." "It didn't really mean anything, as far as I was concerned, but it was attached to me, and I couldn't escape it," she explained. Mirren added, "But then I also realized, you just have to live with the cards you have been dealt. I came to terms with it, and you've got to have a sense of humor about it." Mirren shared her joy in seeing television shows getting their flowers much the same way as films these days. "When I was growing up and getting into my business, British film was really awful," she laughed. "There was the odd, very noble exception, but generally, it was pretty awful. And the best work was being done on television." She added that "people who became great and very famous movie directors started their careers on television, and the best writers were on television."
