<....The city's lawsuit alleges Westforth Sports repeatedly broke federal gun laws and ignored clear signs of straw purchasing and gun trafficking, such as high volume, repetitive and multiple-sale transactions involving duplicate or near-duplicate firearms.

According to the suit, Westforth Sports "feeds the market for illegal firearms by knowingly selling its products to an ever-changing roster of gun traffickers and straw (sham) purchasers who transport Westforth Sports' guns from Indiana into Chicago, where they are resold to individuals who cannot legally possess firearms, including convicted felons and drug traffickers."

A 2017 Chicago Police Department report on available gun traces between 2013 and 2016 found Westforth Sports was the third-largest federally licensed source of crime guns in the Chicago area, tied to 2.3% of all recovered crime guns. About 45% of the Westforth Sports guns recovered during that period had a "time-to-crime" of less than three years, and 20% had a time-to-crime of less than a year, according to the report. "Time-to-crime" is the period between the purchase of a gun and its recovery by police in a crime.

Studies of firearms recovered by law enforcement over a longer period — between 2009 and 2016 — "consistently rank Westforth as the highest out-of-state supplier of crime guns in the city, responsible for more than 850 recovered crime guns over this period," according to the complaint.

A review of federal prosecutions from December 2014 to April 2021 for illegal gun purchases in the Northern District of Indiana revealed approximately 44% of the cases involved sales at Westforth Sports, the lawsuit says.

Firearms purchased at Westforth Sports have been associated with homicides, assaults, domestic violence and more, according to Everytown. The advocacy group says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives inspected Westforth Sports at least six times between 2010 and 2021, and each inspection resulted in violations — many of which were repeats.

In court filings, attorneys for Westforth have argued the company sells firearms in Indiana to Indiana residents, in compliance with state and federal law.

The majority of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago are traced back to states with less regulation over firearms, such as Indiana and Mississippi, according to the 2017 report. Indiana is the primary source for approximately one out of every five crime guns, the report found.>

<The race for Colorado’s 3rd district seat was much tighter than expected.

In fact, the race was razor tight. Only about 500 votes separated the two candidates. Incumbent Republican Lauren Boebert was heavily favored to defeat Democratic candidate Adam Frisch in the conservative district.

But the race was so close that a recount was required.

The final count: Boebert won with 163,839 votes (50.1 percent), defeating Frisch who tallied 163,293 votes (49.9 percent). It doesn’t get much closer than that.

Voters growing wary of MAGA and Lauren Boebert

Boebert’s 2022 midterm results contrast sharply with her own 2020 results.

In 2020, Boebert tallied 220,634 votes – almost 60,000 more than in 2022. And in 2020, Boebert defeated the Democratic candidate, Diane Mitsch Busch, by nearly 30,000 votes. There was no recount required in 2020. Boebert and MAGA won comfortably.

Boebert’s 2022 troubles speak to a larger national trend, in which MAGA candidates seem to have reduced appeal.

In swing states, states where Trump was once successful, MAGA candidates were resoundingly defeated. And while Boebert ultimately won her election on a MAGA platform, her performance was shoddy enough that a Democrat came within 500 votes of winning Colorado’s comfortably conservative third district.

The results are comforting, supporting the idea that most people are reasonable; most people are decent. And that a candidate like Lauren Boebert, who is neither reasonable nor decent, would lose support amongst reasonable, decent constituents seemed inevitable and is ultimately comforting.

Now, that’s not to say that whether a person is reasonable or decent depends upon who they vote for – rather that Boebert’s behavior and platforms would gradually debate support amongst conservatives inclined to vote conservative.

Boebert losing appeal

Boebert became a nationally prominent member of the House during her first term.

Boebert rose to prominence using a MAGA formula. First, Boebert was a staunch and vocal defender of then-President Donald Trump. Second, Boebert wielded social media like a weapon. And relatedly, third, Boebert had a habit of feuding with her Democratic counterparts. The recipe worked – kind of. Boebert became one of the most well-known members of Congress. But Boebert’s antics have obviously degraded the support she enjoys amongst her constituents back in Colorado.

Boebert became a viable candidate in 2019 when she confronted Beto O’Rourke’s gun buy-back program at a town hall event. Boebert gained further notoriety when her restaurant (Shooter’s Grill) refused to honor the governor’s orders to close during the COVID-19 pandemic. Voters loved Boebert’s politics and her outspokenness. She was awarded with a seat in Congress.

During Boebert’s first term in Congress, things got a little weird. She supported the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education; she opposed Colorado’s red flag laws, which allow the police to remove a firearm from someone deemed dangerous to themselves or others; she believes that the market, rather than the government, should determine how the energy market functions, and how the health care system functions. Boebert also opposes gay marriage; opposes the separation of church and state.

To top it all of [sic]: Boebert espouses several conspiracy theories including QAnon, which holds that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are operating a clandestine pedophilia ring.

Simply put, Boebert is a menace. And the voters responded accordingly.

Frisch almost scored an upset against Boebert through exploiting her zaniness. Frisch criticized Boebert for her “angertainment.” Frisch also rolled out a moderate platform – vowing not to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House and vowing to serve as a nonpartisan problem-solver – that had surprising appeal in the conservative district.

Frisch lost in the end – but just barely. And in losing, Frisch further demonstrated the vulnerability of MAGA.>

<Evil lurks. Stay away.>

Forgotten that gem?

<Back in the 1980s, Soviet Union officials in the Politburo had a hard time comprehending the relationship between conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan and liberal House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-Massachusetts). Reagan and O'Neill had plenty of policy disagreements, yet they famously maintained a cordial relationship and viewed one another as the loyal opposition — a concept that didn't exist in the Soviet Communist Party.

Times have changed. As critical as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has been of President Joe Biden, many MAGA Republicans resent him not being even more critical. McCarthy is under constant pressure to attack Democrats more vehemently and defend former President Donald Trump more aggressively.

An article published by the Daily Beast on July 27 details bitter tensions between McCarthy and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California). McCarthy, according to Beast reporter Matt Fuller, was so angry that he even threatened Swalwell with violence for calling him a "p***y."

When House Republicans voted to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) on June 21, Fuller reports, Swalwell slammed McCarthy for going along with it and told him, "This is pathetic. You're weak. You're a weak man."

That exchange, according to Fuller, "was conveyed to The Daily Beast by two separate lawmakers." One of the sources told the Beast that McCarthy "had a vein popping out of his forehead." And on June 22, a source alleged, McCarthy told Swalwell, "If you ever say something like that to me again, I'm gonna kick the s**t out of you…. Call me a p***y again, and I'll kick your a**."

But Swalwell, according to the lawmakers, didn't back down and told the House speaker, "You. Are. A. P***y."

A House member, also interviewed on condition of anonymity, told the Beast, "They were in each other's faces. Basically nose-to-nose. And Swalwell said something like, 'Are we really gonna do this?'"

Fuller reports, "Since then, Swalwell has repeatedly slammed McCarthy on cable TV and social media, recently calling him 'corrupt' on MSNBC. While neither McCarthy nor Swalwell wanted to go on the record to speak about the incident, a month after the confrontation, the story is making its way around Congress, with each telling getting a little more dramatic. At least publicly, there's little indication the feud will die down — at least on Swalwell's part.">

<A Michigan attorney has confirmed she filed an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) complaint against Moms for Liberty, the parental rights group with positions against racially inclusive and LGBTQ+ education in schools. The complaint, which is private but was obtained by the Guardian, alleges that the rightwing organization is in violation of its 501(c)4 non-profit status.

Experts in tax law say an IRS investigation into the Moms for Liberty, named an extremist group by Southern Poverty Law Center, would take at least two years. If their non-profit status is revoked, it would most likely cause the group to re-characterize as a private organization, further decreasing transparency about how money is flowing into it.

Representatives for Moms for Liberty declined to comment, saying they would be unable to respond to questions without seeing a copy of the complaint.

The eight-page complaint questions whether Moms for Liberty is a political educational organization and notes public posts endorsing Republican candidates, the group’s campaigning for Republican candidates, and links to partisan training materials.

“It would be a permissible educational purpose if there were advocating to remove gender discussions from classrooms and schools if there was a balanced presentation of benefits and drawbacks of using a person’s preferred pronouns, supporting LGBTQ youth, impacts on children of being ‘exposed’ to LGBTQ supportive environments,” the complaint states. “There is not.”

The complaint cites a landmark case, American Campaign Academy v Commissioner, in which a school for Republican candidates was ultimately denied its non-profit status because it was providing partisan-only education.

Admission to local chapters is through private Facebook pages and controlled by the national organization, the complaint continues, obscuring the ability to determine how the group’s educational activities benefit the public.

The IRS complaint also examines if Moms for Liberty is an action organization, raising questions about its participation in political campaigns and active recruitment of school board candidates.

“The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,” the complaint reads. “However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.”

Many of the elements of the complaint – the issues raised about Moms for Liberty’s private memberships and websites and questions about it being a political educational organization – will not pass muster, Phillip Hackney, associate professor of law at University of Pittsburgh said, though Hackney said he does think the complaint is correct in bringing up the group’s intervention in political campaigns. 501(c)4 groups, the most common type of dark money organizations, are allowed to endorse candidates and participate in an unlimited amount of lobbying. Hackney warned the group’s campaigning and promoting candidates can theoretically get into “a damage area” if it exceeds 25% of their group’s activities.

If it stretches past that to 25 to 50% of the group’s activities, it reaches “a real danger zone”, he said. Once campaigning becomes more than half of what the group is participating in, they can lose their non-profit status. With continuing budget resolutions, Hackney said Congress has made it hard for the IRS to give clarity in this space....>

<....Additionally, Hackey calls 501(c)4 groups “charitable-organizations lite”, formed exclusively for social welfare purposes with the goal of doing something broadly in the public interest. Social welfare is a hard-to-define term, he said; as a result, the organizations that don’t quite fit the standards for a charitable non-profit will instead go into the “trash bin” of a 501(c)4.

A wide range of organizations can fit into the gray-area definition of social welfare. An Urban Institute study found that the majority of 501(c)4 groups are community service clubs, but also include sports leagues, veterans organizations, health providers and insurers, and homeowner and tenant associations.

More people are familiar with 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt charitable organizations that do not need to pay taxes on earnings or donations, a benefit that makes this type of non-profit “superior” to 501(c)4 social welfare organizations, Hackney said. Charities can do a small amount of lobbying, though the exact amount of activities and expenses they’re allowed to contribute according to IRS law remains unclear. They are nonetheless prohibited from “intervening in a political campaign directly or indirectly”, such as endorsing a presidential candidate, Hackney said.

“That same prohibition does not apply to a (c)4. A number of charitable organizations will set up a charity, then have a sister social welfare organization that conducts lobbying,” Hackney said, calling it a “troublesome space”.

The charity will not be able to intervene with a political campaign, while the sister organization will. The organizations need to ensure the money coming in through the charity does not get mixed in with the 501(c)4 sister organization.

Social welfare organizations do not receive the same type of far-reaching tax benefits as charities. For example, they do not need to pay taxes on their goods and services if they further the organization’s purpose. If that standard isn’t met, a business tax applies. Nevertheless, this type of non-profit structure contains a tremendous boon for wealthy donors: tax exemption on gifted securities.

Barre Seid, a Chicago billionaire, donated $1.65bn in securities to the Marble Freedom Trust, a rightwing 501(c)4 run by Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo. Marble Freedom and Seid did not need to pay taxes on the stock transfer, which represented 100% of Seid’s ownership of the electrical goods manufacturing company Tripp Lite. If the securities had appreciated during the time frame Marble Freedom Trust owned the stock, it wouldn’t have been required to pay taxes on those gains. However, the conservative fund ultimately sold the stock; the power management company Eaton Corporation acquired it in March 2021.

Within a month, Marble Freedom Trust used the proceeds from the sale to funnel tens of millions of dollars into other conservative groups advocating for rightwing judges and greater privacy protections for libertarian and conservative donors, CNN reported.

Currently, charitable organizations and social welfare organizations do not need to disclose their donors. IRS rules about non-profit donor disclosures changed during the Trump administration, opening the tap for dark money to flood election politics without the public knowing about it. Hackney argued that disclosure is “a reasonable thing” that is “part of the democratic fabric”, but social welfare organizations are able to operate in a way that resists it, particularly when they are doing issue advocacy.

IRS investigations into a 501(c)4 like Moms for Liberty would be “heavily fact intensive”, Hackney said, with an agent reviewing materials and going back and forth with attorneys for 18 months. The IRS has a statute of limitations to complete an investigation within three years, he said. If the group’s status is revoked after that time, it probably would not owe back taxes but would reorganize as a taxable, private organization with even less transparency and no prohibitions on political campaigning.>

<The US bond market is on the verge of a meltdown that will send government debt costs spiraling and wreck the loan portfolios of vulnerable banks, according to one expert.

Peter Schiff, CEO and chief economist at Euro Pacific Asset Management, warned of a crash in Treasuries after benchmark 10-year yields jumped above the key 4% level on Thursday, fueling a selloff in US equities. Bond yields move inversely to prices.

A debt-market rout would also see home loan rate surge in line with Treasury yields,, according to Schiff, who predicts the benchmark 30-year mortgage rates to soon hit 8%, a level last seen in 2000.

"The bond market is on the verge of a major breakdown. Not only will this raise the cost of financing the $32.7 trillion National Debt, but it'll crush the loan portfolios of already insolvent banks," he said in a tweet.

Yields on 10-year Treasuries surged as much as 15 basis points on Thursday to touch a high of 4.02% after official data showed the US GDP rose more in the second quarter than economists had estimated. The strength of the economy is fueling expectations that the Federal Reserve could continue to raise interest rates in a bid to cool inflation to its 2% target.

The Fed raised its benchmark rate this week by 25 basis points to a 22-year high, bringing the total increases since the spring of 2022 to a whopping 525 basis points.

The latest bond-market selloff and the recent rebound in global oil prices signal risks that inflation could reaccelerate, adding pressure on the central bank to tighten monetary policy further, according to Schiff. WTI oil futures have rallied 25% from early May lows.

"Surging oil and collapsing bond prices are powerful signs that #inflation pressures are building in the economy. For all #Powell's talk about the #Fed winning its inflation fight, forward looking indicators evidence its losing. How much longer can the #StockMarket ignore reality?" he said.

"The #Fed's gonna need a much bigger rate hike!," he added.

Higher bond rates would also boost the government's debt costs, adding pressure on the country's already-stressed public finances, according Schiff.

US national debt now stands close to a staggering $33 trillion, after jumping by more than $1 trillion since early June - when a political standoff over the government's borrowing limit was resolved. Billionaire investor Ray Dalio warned last month that the US was at the start of a debt crisis.

Schiff also pointed out that a bond-market slide and a general rise in interest rates could hurt more banks – as was the case of SVB's collapse in March. The bank had made large investments in Treasuries, the value of which plunged as the Fed raised interest rates. That spooked the bank's customers and investors, triggering a selloff in its stocks and a run on its deposits and eventually leading to its collapse.>

<During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Katie Phang Show," Peter Strzok, who previously served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, drew attention to a notation in the Department of Justice's superseding indictment related to the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case about the activities of Donald Trump aide Walt Nauta.

Invited on to discuss the latest DOJ filing about which he said, "It just got a lot worse for Trump," the former FBI official pointed out a meeting that Nauta conducted on a property adjacent to Trump's Florida resort and said it should raise red flags.

As he told the host, "Nauta was at one, point scheduled to travel with the president. He canceled that without telling anybody. He remade plans to travel instead down to Mar-a-Lago, and he's telling people about it using 'shush' emojis."

"Then the superseding indictment lays out some fascinating detail," he continued. "He goes down over the weekend and he starts engaging in communications and back-and-forth with [Mar-A-Lago property manager Carlos] de Oliveira including a weekend, or I think it was actually a Monday meeting after a lot of back-and-forth where Nauta parks at an adjacent property."

"He doesn't even go on to Mar-a-Lago and de Oliveira goes out, goes through some bushes to meet with him, goes back in and goes back out a second time to meet with Nauta," he elaborated. "Now, what were they talking about? The indictment doesn't specify. But any time you see the sort of odd behavior, where someone is deliberately taking measures not to go into Mar-a-Lago, with now two charged co-conspirators, one, it is a really compelling, dramatic narrative for a jury. But certainly, it kind of raises the question: what was so important that Walt Nauta was there over the weekend, was engaging in these meetings, but was absolutely unwilling to go to the Mar-a-Lago property?">

<High levels of a toxic chemical in the body has been identified as a possible reason people age, leading scientists believe.

Formaldehyde is best known as an embalming agent but it has recently been found to be naturally made by cells. Now, a study has also shown it causes ageing.

It is hoped that because scientists have identified the specific chemical responsible for the process that a drug could one day be developed to halt the march of Father Time.

Researchers from Cornell, Oxford, Cambridge and Cancer Research UK are currently trying to find out exactly what leads to high levels of formaldehyde production and if there are any drugs that may be able to lower levels.

‘One of the potential causes’

Prof Meng Wang, a haematology expert who led the work while at Cambridge and who is now at Cornell, said: “We believe we have pinned down one of the potential causes of natural ageing.

“This potentially could lead to a therapy to slow down natural ageing-related decline.”

Scientists recently discovered a new disease, called “Adds”, which affects less than one in a million people and leads to blood cancer in patients who have a genetic mutation that leaves them unable to remove formaldehyde from their system.

They found cells naturally make formaldehyde that damages DNA by latching on to the genetic material and stopping it from functioning properly, thus speeding up ageing.

Prof Wang investigated the nefarious impact of formaldehyde further and switched off the two mechanisms that flush out formaldehyde in mice.

‘Triggered response’

Analysis revealed the blood stem cells of these formaldehyde-riddled animals looked two years old when the animals were just eight weeks old.

“We found the ageing of blood stem cells is very much a triggered response in response to the DNA damage from formaldehyde,” he said.

Prof Wang added the team is now working to find out what specific pathways produce the toxic chemical, and if any interventions can be discovered to help the body remove or destroy it.

The study, published in Cell Metabolism, was only able to look for signs of ageing in blood but the scientists suspect accelerated ageing also occurs in other organs.

The team is now also investigating if formaldehyde production is affected by food or other lifestyle factors and if drugs can be created to stop it accumulating.

“These will have clear therapeutic implications and if it’s simply in terms of modulating diet, then I think everyone has a stake in the game,” Prof Wang said.

‘Clear link’

He stressed that it is unlikely that formaldehyde alone causes the entire process of ageing, but there is a clear link between the two.

“I don’t think it will ever be the case where if we remove formaldehyde we completely stop ageing because there’ll be other similar chemicals that will also be contributing to this,” said Prof Wang.

“But I do think this shows that our bodies are making definable and measurable chemicals that we can track that lead to big problems, like ageing.”

Work is ongoing to see if other chemicals influence ageing in the same way as formaldehyde, and the key for scientists then, Prof Wang said, is to find a way to stop them “accumulating and elevating”.>

<Former Fox News and NBC host Megyn Kelly was buried in derision on Sunday after she responded to a tweet from President-elect Joe Biden calling for national unity with a snotty comment about him living in a basement.

Kelly who left Fox and signed with NBC for a $69 million deal, only to be booted early for controversial comments and low ratings, has since moved on to podcasting and tweeting commentary to her 2.5 million followers.

Saturday night, the newly elected Biden tweeted "A nation united. A nation strengthened. A nation healed. The United States of America," to which Kelly responded, "Written like a man who’s been in his basement for a year" that echoed a failed talking point of the Trump campaign.

Twitter commenters were quick to call out Kelly with one reminding her, "Didn't we cancel you?">

While no fan of Biden, I am with him all the way in this call to pull together during an increasingly divisive time in this country.

Do the country a favour and cancel her worthless arse.

<Right Side Broadcasting Network interviewer Matthew Alvarez on Saturday interrupted pre-Trump coverage of a rally to clarify that he does not want his supporters to "kill" liberals, globalists, and RINOs.

"There is something that is trending on Twitter right now... I was interviewing people... they were talking about how great the country is, how great the president is, and I heard something else that was spoken... what I'm hearing is somebody said, 'Well let's kill them all.' That is not something that I agree with, obviously," he said. The video shows a supporter saying "Kill them all," and then Alvarez saying, "I agree with you on that."

He continued his explanation:

"So if there is there is something that happened, where somebody was speaking out there, I didn't hear those words spoken. It's very loud outside. All I know is I'm here for God, for this country, for truth, for President Trump, that kind of thing. Definitely not a proponent of anything like that happening."

He then tried to change the subject, looking away and saying, "This song, by the way, is awesome."

Another host from the network jumped in to say he had heard the clip.

"It is very natural for someone to maybe agree with them, even if you didn't understand," he said. "They will take a clip of that and run with it. We all know that's not what you meant."

Alvarez then replied, "I didn't say it, I didn't hear the guy say it.">

<According to a report from the Washington Times, should Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) decide to step down due to health concerns, Kentucky's Democratic governor already has already made the constitutional case that he can pick a Democrat to fill the seat despite a law the state GOP majority passed in 2021.

With questions being raised about how long the senior Republican will remain in Congress after an incident last week where he stood stock-still and appeared unable to speak before reporters -- only to be led away by some of his GOP colleagues -- attention in Kentucky has turned to who will be his inevitable replacement.

As it stands now. McConnell's term does not expire until 2026 after winning re-election in 2020.

According to the Washington Times, in 2021 a GOP supermajority overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's veto of a bill that requires "the governor to file mid-term vacancies in the U.S. Senate from a list of three candidates chosen by the state party of the previous sitting senator."

As Michael Abate, a Louisville attorney who has assisted the Kentucky Democratic Party, explained, Beshear may ignore the law, appoint a Democrat, and challenge the Republican legislature to take him to court.

“I would imagine you would absolutely see a lawsuit on this," he stated.

He added, "Beshear either says, ‘Hey, Republican Party, thank you for your list, but I’m appointing whoever I want’ and then that immediately gets challenged in court, or you could see Beshear taking the route of filing a lawsuit. I mean, he’s got the guts to defy it.”

The Washington Times reports, "In Kentucky, Mr. Beshear set the stage to challenge the 2021 law when he declared it unconstitutional and vetoed it. The legislature’s Republican supermajority overrode the veto. In a veto message, the governor cited the U.S. Constitution’s 17th Amendment passed in 1912, which states that the legislature 'may empower the executive' to make temporary appointments to fill a senate vacancy."

As Beshear wrote at the time, "The bill … upends a century of precedent by delegating the power to select the representative of all Kentuckians to an unelected, unaccountable committee of an organization that represents only a fraction of Kentuckians. The Seventeenth Amendment does not authorize legislatures to direct how the Governor makes an appointment to fill vacancies, and the legislature may not impose an additional qualification on who the Governor may appoint beyond the qualifications for a United States Senator set forth in the Constitution.”>

<Is the climate-crisis campaign trying to undermine its own credibility? Are its exponents deliberately fomenting scepticism about their own arguments with absurd hyperbole? Or have they, out of sheer ill temper, just given up on persuasion and decided to resort to wild claims that arouse suspicion and hostility?

Consider two possible instances of this, both of which occurred within the past week. The secretary general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, stated without any qualification that, “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.” Boiling? What is it exactly that is boiling? The oceans? Freshwater lakes? The mains water in your pipes? Given that we are talking about supposed scientific fact here, what is the empirical basis for the use of the word “boiling”? And – a genuinely factual question – what effect is the use of that word, which has no basis in observable reality, likely to have on the discussion of global-warming policy, which is now becoming seriously contentious?

The second notable example: an official statement issued by the Meteorological Office attacking a widely reported article in the scientific journal Nature, which claimed that the Atlantic Ocean current system, which maintains mild weather in Europe, could collapse in two years. This claim was, said the Met Office (which generally supports the climate-change thesis), “overdramatised” and simplistic, and it went on to warn, in what I believe to be quite unprecedented terms, that such overblown theatrical pronouncements could undermine the public perception of climate science. You bet they could.

In fact, these statements are peculiarly irresponsible: if they are believed, they are (as the Met Office went on to point out) likely to induce despair and resignation in a population that is being urged to become ­­proactive. If they are disbelieved, they could lead to cynicism and a refusal to take seriously whatever threat there may actually be.

Coincidentally, these histrionic claims, and the crucial critical examination of them, occurred only days after environmental policy had a spectacular political setback in the Uxbridge by-election. In what was the first clear-cut democratic test of whether people will be prepared to accept the real cost of all this, they made their judgment clear enough to throw Government and Opposition policy on the environment into chaos. Party leaders are now falling over one another to insist that they fully understand the considerable popular concern about adding to the cost of living, blah-blah.

The power of free people to exercise their democratic will has suddenly shifted the parameters of the whole debate. So it is time to have a grown-up discussion, rather than what has prevailed until now: endless recriminations followed by demands that we dismantle the modern era and accept an existence that is not just pre-industrial but pre-agrarian, since the breeding of animals for food, which replaced the primitive hunter-gatherer model of survival, is also to be forbidden. Basic rule of political communication: do not suggest pauperising your electorate except under very temporary circumstances with clear objectives, such as fighting a war. Tony Blair, who knows a thing or two about winning elections, has been quick off the mark with this theme. In fact, no government, elected or otherwise, would survive for long on such a prospectus, for sound reasons: it is morally unacceptable to advocate a return to a time when life was truly nasty, brutish and short....>

<....But there is more at risk in the zero-sum solution of destroying prosperity and economic growth than mere electoral unpopularity. The new proper conversation will have to address another of last week’s developments. The wildfires in southern Europe, which may in part have been caused by arson and an exceptional jet-stream pattern, were almost certainly exacerbated and prolonged by what was an extreme (but not necessarily record-breaking) heatwave.

Most people accept that there is considerable evidence for the measurable rise in global temperatures to be attributed at least in part to increased carbon emissions, even though the traditional means of proving a causal relation between two phenomena – repeating an experiment in order to replicate the original result, while eliminating other variables – is obviously impossible in this case.

But even on this moderate global-warming thesis, in which carbon in the atmosphere increases the effect of extreme dangerous events, there is certainly a rational case for addressing the problem. And as everybody is now saying, the answers must lie with human ingenuity and resourcefulness, which have proved over the millennia to be virtually limitless.

The first stage of the argument must be about priorities: choosing between adaptation and innovation. Do we accept that there will be changes in the conditions of life on earth that require the migration of populations, as there have been in countless earlier eras, with all the political and economic upheaval that will entail? Or do we try to interfere with those changes in ways that might involve drastic reinvention and use of resources, which will have to be universally accepted and enforced, perhaps by quite new international authorities?

Both of these options, or any combination of the two, are going to be very expensive. The world is going to need to create wealth on a spectacular scale in order to cope with mass migrations, or to conduct the sort of innovative research and instrumental application of that research that the new conditions will require. The engineering and manufacture of whatever is needed will demand investment, economic confidence and courageous foresight – the direct opposite, in other words, of self-imposed poverty.

If the climate campaigners are anywhere near being right, there are huge questions with profound implications for democratic governments, which must – even in the most dangerous circumstances – take people with them in willing consent. This is not the moment for hysteria, or for insulting the intelligence of ordinary people, or alienating them with accusations of selfishness and ignorance. Problem-solving is a function of rational thinking. It’s time to get on with it.>

<Donald Trump on Saturday took a swipe at his former aide Cassidy Hutchinson while he was attacking a fellow contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

Trump questioned whether Cassidy Hutchinson, who famously became the key to breaking through the Trump administration wall of silence in the investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection, was related to Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor who is challenging Trump for the 2024 GOP nomination. The parties have previously confirmed they are not related in any way.

Despite that, Trump compared the two in a post on Truth Social Saturday.

"Don’t weak people like 'Aida' Hutchinson (Any relationship to one Cassidy Hutchinson, who actually stated that I became very physical with two tough, strong, Secret Service Agents, in getting them to turn around the 'Beast' on January 6th?) know or understand that the Prosecution of Donald Trump is an Election Interference Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, or the Fake Dossier, and that he is playing right into Marxists hands, when I am leading the R’s by 50 Points and leading Biden BIG!" Trump wrote.

Trump earlier lashed out at yet another GOP opponent: Will Hurd. Hurd made news on Friday when he became the first GOP candidate to criticize Trump at an event where the former president was speaking.

"In Iowa last night I noticed that a little known, failed former Congressman, Will Hurd, is ridiculously running for President. He quit Congress because it would have been impossible for him to win in his district - he did a really bad job," Trump wrote Saturday. "Anyway, he got SERIOUSLY booed off the stage when he said I was running 'to stay out of jail.' Wrong, if I wasn’t running, or running and doing badly (like him & Christie!), with no chance to win, these prosecutions would never have been brought or happened!">

<On Monday, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced, on X — formerly Twitter, that a key witness in the ongoing investigation into the Biden family’s alleged corruption has agreed to cooperate with the GOP-led House Oversight Committee.

This announcement follows McCarthy’s recent comments suggesting that the probes into President Joe Biden and his family are reaching the level of an impeachment inquiry.

The Speaker cited allegations from two IRS whistleblowers and House GOP investigations that revealed millions in foreign funds passing through shell companies to Biden family members and associates.

Why It Matters: This development is significant as it comes at a time when the GOP is intensifying its scrutiny of the Biden administration.

State of Survival

However, these impeachment talks have been met with opposition from within the Republican party and have been dismissed by the White House as a desperate reaction to the improving economy under Biden's administration.

Despite the ongoing controversy, McCarthy remains committed to the investigation, stating that anyone who tries to obstruct Congressional oversight will be held accountable.>

<Florida Democrats see a possible path to winning America’s once-foremost battleground state: Abortion and marijuana.

National Democrats had all but written off Florida as a lost cause — a former purple state turned solid red by the MAGA movement and Gov. Ron DeSantis. But key party leaders in the state, desperate to turn things around in 2024, are confident that citizen initiatives dealing with abortion rights and recreational marijuana legalization could fuel turnout and boost the party’s chances.

“It will have a transformative impact on the election,” said former state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando Democrat who was swept out of office last year amid Florida’s red wave and is now running for the state Senate.

When Democrats gathered in Miami Beach this month to raise money and strategize about 2024, they were buzzing about the prospect of what such high-profile citizens initiatives could mean. Republicans, they said, could suddenly find themselves at a disadvantage.

“I think it’s a perfect storm,” said Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried, who included in that storm the backlash against DeSantis as well as 2024 being a presidential election year where turnout is routinely higher than in midterms.

Some are skeptical that the initiatives will change the fortunes of the party. But as Democratic Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber put it, “Once you reach the bottom, the only way is up.”

Fried said that Democratic volunteers and paid canvassers will help gather signatures for the pot and abortion amendments when they go out into the field. The party does not plan to help fund either initiative, but Florida Democrats are promoting the abortion rights initiative — as well one dealing with clean water — on the party’s website.

There’s no guarantee right now that either the abortion rights or recreational marijuana initiative will make the 2024 ballot. The pot amendment, funded almost entirely by the marijuana giant Trulieve, has already gotten over 1 million signatures, more than enough to qualify. But Florida’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court still needs to approve the initiative and state Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody has asked the high court to reject the measure.

Organizers for the abortion rights initiative, which would create a constitutional amendment banning restrictions on abortion before about 24 weeks, say they have gathered more than 400,000 signatures and are on pace to reach one million in the next couple of months. If approved, it would block Florida’s current ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy and this year’s six-week ban, which remains in limbo until the state Supreme Court decides on a legal challenge to the bans.

The coalition backing the abortion amendment, which includes Planned Parenthood and American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, have made substantial donations to the effort and plans to spend millions of dollars to gather enough signatures by the Feb. 1 deadline. Trulieve has already contributed more than $25 million toward the marijuana initiative.

No one doubts that Democrats face major hurdles ahead of 2024. Democrats were hammered in the last election and lost races up and down the ballot, including DeSantis’ nearly 20-point blowout victory over Charlie Crist, who campaigned on abortion rights.

A recent win by Democrat Donna Deegan in the Jacksonville’s mayor race has buoyed the party faithful, but Democrats consistently trail Republicans in fundraising — and more importantly, there are now nearly 542,000 more active registered Republicans than Democrats in the state.

The big victories by Republicans also highlighted another major problem: an enthusiasm gap that could continue to haunt Democrats as they enter the crucial presidential election. Democratic turnout in key strongholds dropped in 2022 and opened the door to Republicans flipping populous counties, such as Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, that routinely went for Democrats in past elections.

“Ron DeSantis did not win by 19 points,” Fried said. “The Florida Democrats lost by 19 points. That is on us.”

As part of the effort to turn around Democrats fortunes, Fried is aiming to use the party for voter registration efforts instead of relying on outside groups. Florida Democrats, for example, put together a youth council to target and mobilize young voters. The hope is also that the abortion and marijuana initiatives will provide an incentive for infrequent voters to turn at the polls. And even if it’s not enough to help Biden win Florida — which Trump won in 2020 — it may make a difference in down-ballot contests....>

<....This isn’t the first time that a party used citizen initiatives to drive voter turnout. The Republican Party of Florida was one of the major donors behind a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage in the state about 15 years ago. Groups pushed the amendment even though it was already illegal under Florida law at the time. The anti-gay marriage initiative passed, with 61 percent of Florida voters approving it. But Democrat former President Barack Obama still carried the state that year over Republican John McCain.

State Rep. Anna Eskamani, an Orlando Democrat who once worked for Planned Parenthood, is convinced the abortion rights amendment will energize young voters who are disappointed with President Joe Biden and frustrated over gun violence and the inability to cancel student loans. In other words, it will turn out Democratic voters who would otherwise stay home in protest.

The 33-year-old Eskamani said she’s seen a surge of interest from people who want to help get the abortion rights measure on the ballot, recounting how organizers gathered 1,600 petitions at a recent Paramore concert in Orlando. She said the measure will remind voters that Republicans pushed to restrict abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last year.

“It reminds people what is at stake, it gives us a platform,” Eskamani said.

But Dan Smith, chair of the University of Florida political science department who has a lengthy record of researching ballot initiatives, is doubtful that the pot legalization amendment and the abortion rights measure will make a substantial difference in the 2024 race. He said measures like these affect races on the “margins.”

Smith said his studies have shown that initiatives are more likely to spur turnout in midterm races, not presidential elections. He noted that last year’s referendum in Kansas — where voters rejected a measure that would have allowed additional restrictions on abortion — was held during an August primary race.

“If Democrats aren’t turning out in 2024 because of the race for president, having a measure on the ballot isn’t enough to make up for that lack of enthusiasm,” said Smith, suggesting that Florida Democrats would be doomed if their turnout mirrors last year’s elections, where Republicans dominated throughout the state and even won some traditionally Democratic strongholds.

Republicans also remain skeptical that Democrats will rebound next year since the voter registration gap keeps growing.

Christian Ziegler, chair of the Republican Party of Florida, contended that measures put in place by DeSantis and the GOP — such as a law banning the instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation in schools — will resonate with a majority of voters.

“No issue amendments, logo rebrands or other desperate attempts to put lipstick on a radical will cause Floridians to forget that Democrats are committed to an insane agenda featuring the indoctrination, sexualization and molestation of our children,” Ziegler said.

Yet Screven Watson, a former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party and a veteran consultant and lobbyist, said that, on paper, having the two initiatives on the 2024 ballot should be a boost to the party.

“But it doesn’t work if people don’t get off the couch,” said Watson who lamented past close elections where Democrats narrowly lost. “The question is, will it work this time?”>

<Senator Chris Murphy has dismissed claims by the supreme court justice, Samuel Alito, that the Senate has “no authority” to create a code of conduct for the court as “stunningly wrong”.

The Connecticut Democrat made those remarks in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, adding that Alito “should know that more than anyone else because his seat on the supreme court exists only because of an act passed by Congress”.

“It is Congress that establishes the number of justices on the supreme court,” Murphy said. “It is Congress that has passed in the past requirements for justices to disclose certain information, and so it is just wrong on the facts to say that Congress doesn’t have anything to do with the rules guiding the supreme court.”

He continued: “It is even more disturbing that Alito feels the need to insert himself into a congressional debate.”

Murphy’s comments came after the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Alito on Friday in which he said: “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the constitution gives them the authority to regulate the supreme court – period.”

During his interview with State of the Union, Murphy went on to criticize the nine-member supreme court’s conservative supermajority. He accused Alito and the court’s other conservatives of seeing “themselves as politicians” rather than impartial jurists.

“They just see themselves as a second legislative body that has just as much power and right to impose their political will on the country as Congress does,” Murphy said. “They are going to bend the law in order to impose their rightwing view of how the country should work on the rest of us.”

In recent months, several of the supreme court’s conservative justices have found themselves in ethical controversy after reports emerged of their involvement in real estate transactions with Republican billionaire donors, discreet payments from Republican activists, millions of dollars’ worth of luxury trips and thousands of dollars in private school tuition.

As a result, many Democrats have called for tighter ethics rules for the supreme court’s justices, who they say lack conduct rules that are comparable to other federal authorities.

Earlier this month, the Senate judiciary committee approved legislation to impose tighter ethics rules on the supreme court.

The legislation – which Republicans have adamantly opposed – has slim possibilities of passing in the Senate because it would require at least nine Republican votes. Nonetheless, Democrats say such a measure is a “crucial first step” in restoring public confidence in the nation’s highest court.

Murphy said of the committee-approved measure: “It’s why we need to pass this commonsense ethics legislation to at least make sure we know that these guys aren’t in bed having their lifestyles paid for by conservative donors, as we have unfortunately seen in these latest revelations.”>

<The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published a softball interview with Samuel Alito on Friday in which the Supreme Court justice once again flaunted his ability to troll the public without facing any consequences. The piece—authored by a conservative commentator and a Republican lawyer rather than real journalists—centered on Alito’s claim that Congress cannot impose an ethics code, or perhaps any rules whatsoever, on the Supreme Court. “No provision in the Constitution,” he declared, gives Congress “the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.” That declaration drew the most attention and controversy, in part because the justice appears to have forgotten about a provision of the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress authority to regulate the court, even using the word “regulation.”

This focus on Alito’s claim of absolute immunity from democratic accountability, however, obscured an equally strange and offensive comment from the interview. After describing his conservative colleagues’ differing methodologies, the justice told his interlocutors: “I don’t see that there’s a difference in interpretive method” among the three liberal members of the court. His message was hard to miss: The Republican-appointed justices have unique and complex approaches to the law, “very serious differences” that lead to fissures within the 6–3 supermajority, demonstrating intellectual integrity over results-based judging. The Democratic-appointed justices, by contrast, apply the exact same methods, which typically lead to the same outcomes. The implication seems to be that the conservatives are neutral arbiters of the law who follow unbiased judicial philosophies to their logical conclusions, while the progressive justices are inclined toward activist judging to reach liberal ends.

Conservative media figures frequently flatten the three progressive justices’ jurisprudence in this way, accusing them of voting in lockstep to reach Democrats’ preferred results. It is no surprise that Alito would echo this complaint given his evidently avid consumption of right-wing media. But only a victim of late-stage Fox News–brain could support this conclusion. Today’s left-leaning justices use very different tools to interpret the law. Their methodologies are principled and personal, leading to surprise rulings every term. On many big issues of the day, do they reach the same bottom-line conclusion? Sure. But on plenty of other big issues, they disagree sharply. And even when they do reach parallel verdicts, they often follow divergent paths to reach their destination.

Before turning to those justices, let’s examine the dichotomy that Alito set out in his therapy session with the article’s authors, James Taranto and David Rivkin. (Side note: Rivkin is a lawyer with business before the court in a case next term and also is representing Leonard Leo’s efforts to block the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigations into Leo’s dark money groups). Alito highlighted his own disagreement with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts to illustrate divisions within the conservative bloc. Of Thomas, he noted a tendency to give “less weight” to precedent, which Alito deemed “a virtue of his jurisprudence” because he “sticks to his guns.” Of Gorsuch, he pointed out a focus on pure legal questions over real-world impact, calling the justice “definitely not a consequentialist.” Of Roberts, he said the chief justice “puts a high premium on consensus” and seeks “to protect the prerogatives of the judiciary.” Then, on the other hand, he put the progressive justices in the same box, accusing Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson of using the same “method,” without elaborating on what it might be. (A real journalist might have asked the justice to flesh out this remark, but there were no real journalists in the room.)....>

<....Alito is mistaken. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson do not robotically apply the same indistinguishable method to every case—as plenty of decisions from last term illustrate. Jackson is a progressive originalist who views the entire Constitution through the lens of the post–Civil War amendments establishing a new birth of freedom rooted in equal citizenship. She is also a textualist who subjects every statute to rigorous linguistic analysis, though she will sometimes look to congressional intent, as well. Kagan’s entire jurisprudence is anchored by a profound respect for precedent and a deep skepticism toward radical swings in the law. She is more willing than Jackson or Sotomayor to stand by past conservative rulings, even those from which she fiercely dissented. And she consistently scorns consideration of congressional intent. Sotomayor is less wedded to textualism than Kagan and Jackson, more willing to consider broader congressional purpose; she also feels less constrained by precedent, especially in criminal justice cases. Sotomayor infuses her reasoning with an overarching desire to protect civil liberties from government intrusion, and thus evinces less deference to—and trust in—the democratic branches.

These distinctions shone through in a number of recent cases. Sotomayor and Kagan had perhaps the sharpest clash of the entire term in a brawl over the copyright on an Andy Warhol painting, a decision with huge ramifications for artistic freedom. While Sotomayor’s majority opinion favored a stricter interpretation of “fair use” law, Kagan’s dissent promoted a more expansive reading that would protect more artists from copyright lawsuits. The two justices lobbed extraordinarily brutal barbs back and forth, with Kagan telling Sotomayor to “go back to school.” (Jackson sided with Sotomayor.) In Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters, Kagan and Sotomayor were on the same side, allying with three conservative justices to diminish unions’ right to strike; Jackson penned a fierce dissent accusing them of failing “to heed Congress’s intent.” In National Pork Producers v. Ross, Jackson endorsed a muscular role for federal courts in striking down local burdens of interstate commerce; Kagan and Sotomayor joined Gorsuch’s attempt to remove the court from such battles. In Pugin v. Garland, Jackson endorsed a broader reading of an immigration law involving “obstruction of justice,” while Kagan and Sotomayor favored a narrower interpretation.

The list goes on. In Bittner v. U.S., Jackson joined four conservatives in taking a more lenient approach to enforcement of financial disclosure laws, over the dissenting votes of Kagan and Sotomayor. In U.S. v. Hansen, Kagan sided with the conservatives to uphold a broad law criminalizing encouragement of unlawful authorization of immigrants; Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, wrote a biting dissent accusing the majority of “rewriting” the law to avoid striking it down. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, Sotomayor and Jackson voted to relax limits on lawsuits against corporations, while Kagan joined Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s caustic dissent. In Counterman v. Colorado, Sotomayor charged Kagan and Jackson with diminishing protection for allegedly threatening speech under the First Amendment.

In each of these cases, the three progressive justices’ disagreements arose at least partly out of different methods of applying the law. Each weighed precedent, interpreted text, and balanced constitutional considerations in their own way. That was true when the justices agreed on the correct result, as well: Sotomayor and Jackson’s dissents in the affirmative action decision, for example, contrast in fascinating ways, with Jackson zeroing in on the original meaning of equal protection and Sotomayor faulting the majority for betraying more recent precedent. In that case, as in so many others, it was the supermajority that voted in lockstep, achieving major goals of the conservative legal movement by any means necessary. In most of the term’s blockbuster cases, the Republican-appointed justices lined up behind the GOP’s chosen result. The three liberals only wound up in dissent because they valued precedent, plain text, and judicial restraint over the supermajority’s agenda.

<A judge on Monday rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to keep a Georgia district attorney from prosecuting him and from using certain evidence gathered in her investigation into potential illegal meddling in the 2020 election in the state.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney didn't mince words in his nine-page ruling, which said Trump lacked the legal grounds to bring the challenge before any indictment has been filed in the case. Any harm alleged by Trump and by Cathy Latham, a Republican fake elector from Georgia who had joined his motion, is “either insufficient or else speculative and unrealized,” the judge wrote.

The alleged harms “are insufficient because, while being the subject (or even target) of a highly publicized criminal investigation is likely an unwelcome and unpleasant experience, no court ever has held that that status alone provides a basis for the courts to interfere with or halt the investigation,” McBurney wrote.

In a caustic footnote, seemingly nodding to Trump's status as the dominant frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination for president despite having been indicted twice already, the judge added, “And for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, à la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic.”

Separately Monday, an Atlanta-based journalist said he received two grand jury subpoenas to testify later this month.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, an elected Democrat, has strongly suggested that she is likely to seek charges in the case in the coming weeks. While she has not directly said she plans to seek charges against the Republican former president, she has repeatedly said no one is above the law.

Monday's ruling came in response to a motion filed in March by Trump's Georgia-based legal team that said a special grand jury seated to help Willis investigate “involved a constant lack of clarity as to the law, inconsistent applications of basic constitutional protections for individuals being brought before it, and a prosecutor’s office that was found to have an actual conflict, yet continued to pursue the investigation.”

The special grand jury did not have the power to indict, but it did issue subpoenas and heard from some 75 witnesses while meeting from May to December last year and issued a final report with recommendations for Willis.

Trump attorney Drew Findling did not immediately respond Monday to text and voicemail messages seeking comment.

Latham was one of 16 Georgia Republicans who met at the state Capitol in December 2020 and signed a certificate declaring falsely that Trump had won the presidential election and declaring themselves the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors. Willis last year informed them that they were targets of her investigation, though some have since reached immunity deals with her team.

McBurney said there are no grounds to disqualify Willis from pursuing her investigation and likely prosecution, saying she had not acted improperly.

“The drumbeat from the District Attorney has been neither partisan (in the political sense) nor personal, in marked and refreshing contrast to the stream of personal invective flowing from one of the movants,” he wrote, no doubt referring to Trump....>

<....Trump's attorneys several weeks ago took another stab at barring Willis from prosecuting him and getting the special grand jury's report tossed out with twin filings against Willis and McBurney in Fulton County Superior Court and the Georgia Supreme Court. Explaining this extraordinary action, they cited the fact that McBurney had yet to rule on their earlier motion and Willis' indication that she would soon seek charges in the case.

The state Supreme Court unanimously declined to intervene, dismissing the petition.

A judge from neighboring Cobb County was assigned to consider the other petition after the chief judge of the Fulton County Superior Court recused himself and the other judges on that bench from hearing the matter involving McBurney. He has set a hearing for Aug. 10.

Independent journalist George Chidi on Monday posted a photo on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, of two subpoenas instructing him to appear before a grand jury between Aug. 7 and Aug. 31 and telling him he’d be given 48 hours notice to appear. He wrote in a first-person story for The Intercept that it’s the second time he’s been asked to testify.

Chidi testified before the special grand jury last year about “barging into a semi-clandestine meeting of Republicans pretending to be Georgia’s official electors in December 2020,” he wrote. He described being thrown out of the room just after entering, told that it was an “education meeting.”

Chidi wrote that he is reviewing his options with an attorney but that he expects to testify again “after receiving assurances that I will not be compelled to offer information outside of the narrow issue of election interference and my observations on December 14, 2020.”>

<Provided they were not on an experimental four-day week, or taking some time out for a mindfulness retreat, it must have been a busy few days for the compliance departments at the UK’s major banks.

Perhaps old dossiers were dusted off, files reviewed, memos re-checked, as everyone considered nervously who they might have “debanked” over the last few years.

In the wake of the scandal around Coutts and Nigel Farage, institutions may fear being caught out in similar fashion, or facing similar allegations. But the scale of change required at UK high street banks extends far beyond who can or cannot open an account.

It isn’t just ideological obsessions crowding out financial matters.

From poor service, to a failure to grasp technology and a reticence to support small businesses, this strand of the British banking industry has turned into a lazy oligopoly. The rot goes much deeper than just closing certain accounts.

Over the next few weeks, we should expect some cosmetic changes at NatWest.

A new chief executive will be drafted in to replace the hapless Dame Alison Rose. Sir Howard Davies, who was due to step down mid-2024, might be quietly shuffled aside earlier than expected, although he says there are no plans to do so.

Perhaps it will even dig deep into its corporate history and rebrand itself the “National Provincial” or the “District Bank” - two of the regional Victorian finance houses that were eventually absorbed into the NatWest conglomerate – to signal its levelling up credentials.

But even after the furore over debanking has died down, the UK’s big four high street banks should take this as a wake up call that they need to change a lot more than customer criteria or their logo if they are to remain viable.

The whole sector has become too cosy, too comfortable thanks to regulation stifling competition, and this has manifested itself in a reluctance to innovate and poor service.

Banks and building societies have closed, or have scheduled to close, a total of nearly 6,000 branches since January 2015.

Many banks now treat customers as a cow to be milked through baffling charges, and their loyalty is taken for granted.

The only truly modernising product which has been introduced in the last two decades has been the contactless card, and even that was imported from trials in the US, Japan and France.

This dismal record is reflected in share prices. Although Dame Alison was widely praised for her leadership, NatWest has delivered poor returns. Measured over five years, its shares are down by 12pc.

But its main rivals are no better. Lloyds is down by 28pc over the last five years, Barclays by 17pc, and HSBC, a bank with significant business in China, by 9pc.

Elsewhere globally, banking has been much more dynamic. JP Morgan Chase, the major retail bank in the US, is up by 36pc over the same period; even France’s BNP Paribas is up by 11pc.

It’s hardly surprising British banks are lagging behind their peers. Many were bailed out 15 years ago, either directly or indirectly through near zero interest rates and quantitative easing.

Ever since, they have been content to coast along with indifferent service, making modest profits while taking as little risk as possible, preferring box-ticking over boldness....>