House Passes Debt Ceiling Bill, Setting Up Crucial Senate Vote As Deadline Nears

After a months-long impasse, the House on Wednesday night finally approved a bill to lift the nation’s debt limit and reduce government spending, clearing a crucial hurdle to avert a government default before a June 5 deadline.

The bipartisan measure, the result of a deal between Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden, passed 314 to 117, with 165 Democrats joining 149 Republicans to support the plan. It now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass.

The grueling battle in the House, which had consumed lawmakers for months, ended with a round of bipartisan applause shortly after 9:20 p.m., when the legislation secured a majority. But the debt and budget-cuts package left few happy. On the right, deficit hawks and hard-right members grumbled that the deal did not cut spending enough. On the left, House progressives railed at Republicans’ move to push the nation to the brink of default to win budget concessions. Democratic critics said the agreement calls on Republicans to sacrifice very few priorities, while asking Democrats to accept steep reductions in programs that benefit vulnerable Americans.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Read more: Here’s What’s in the Debt Ceiling Bill

The compromise between McCarthy and Biden was sealed late Saturday after months of acrimonious debate. If approved by the Senate, it would suspend the $31.4 trillion debt limit until Jan. 2025, giving the Treasury Department the ability to borrow as much as it needs until then to pay America’s bills. In exchange, the legislation would cut federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by effectively freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1% growth in 2025. The legislation would also impose stricter work requirements for food stamps, claw back some funding for Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement and unspent COVID-19 relief money, accelerate the permitting of new energy projects, and officially end the Biden Administration’s student loan repayment freeze.

Democrats took comfort in the fact that the cuts were less severe than the ones House Republicans approved in their budget blueprint in April. Compared with the GOP budget, the agreement does not repeal a host of green energy tax incentives established under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act or impose new work requirements for Medicaid recipients.

Even so, not all Democrats were on board. Some progressive members of Congress were dismayed that the deal imposed new work requirements on people aged 50 to 54 in order to receive food stamps. Others voiced frustration that Biden had to negotiate with McCarthy at all over the debt ceiling, complained that the White House had ignored them in its negotiations with Republicans, and said the deal would do too little to protect programs for the poor.

“This is not our deal. This is a right wing, center-right deal,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “If we want to have credibility with the progressive wing of the party, then we need to be able to show that we’re fighting for them.”

The GOP extracted less than some in the party expected, forcing the Republican majority in the House to rely on Democratic votes. It was nonetheless a key test for McCarthy, who was able to strike a deal with Biden while navigating the complicated politics of his own fractious conference. Still, McCarthy saw 71 defections from his side of the aisle. Members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus criticized the outcome. “Nobody could have done a worse job,” said Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina, a hard-right Republican who has publicly said that he considered the deal as grounds for ousting McCarthy from his post. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said the deal had torn the conference “asunder.”

Read more: What To Know About the History of the Debt Ceiling

The bill now heads to the Senate, where members of both parties have made clear their intention to demand votes on amendments in exchange for allowing the legislation to pass quickly. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has said he will seek an amendment to renegotiate military funding levels, while Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said he would push for an amendment to strip out a provision to expedite federal permits for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a controversial natural-gas pipeline between West Virginia and Virginia that has been repeatedly stalled on environmental concerns.

Senate leaders say they are confident they can generate enough support among Democrats and Republicans to get the 60 votes required to send the bill to Biden’s desk. Yet it could be a bumpy finish to a long and painful process. Amendments to the legislation would require that it be sent back to the House, potentially delaying final passage as the June 5 deadline looms. “I can tell you what I hope happens is that those who have amendments, if given votes, will yield back time so that we can finish this Thursday or Friday and soothe the country and soothe the markets,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Wednesday.

source https://time.com/6284000/house-debt-ceiling-bill-passes/

The 5 Best New TV Shows Our Critic Watched in May 2023

Succession is over and—with apologies to anyone who was actually craving more real-estate reality shows or curious to hear Zooey Deschanel answer the question What Am I Eating?—HBO Max’s transformation into Max wasn’t exactly a masterclass in rebranding. But still, our televisual cup runneth over. Wrapping up this year’s pre-Emmy prestige season, May 2023 offered small-screen gems ranging from a historical drama about the woman who helped Anne Frank’s family hide from the Nazis to a semi-autobiographical comedy about what it’s like to be Pete Davidson. Here are the best of a big, diverse bunch.

A Small Light (Nat Geo)

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Miep Gies did not realize, when she started working as a secretary for pectin manufacturer Opekta, that she was destined for heroism. Twenty-four and directionless, the Austrian-born Gies still lived with the Dutch family that had adopted her as a sick child. But the man who hired Gies to be his secretary, in 1933, was Otto Frank, who had just moved his family from Germany to Amsterdam to escape Hitler. Nearly a decade later, when the Nazis marched into the city and started rounding up Jews, she helped the Franks hide, for more than two years, in a secret annex above the Opekta offices. When the Nazis finally raided the place and deported the eight people living there to concentration camps, Gies saved Anne Frank’s diary. A Small Light tells her story—a bracing, emotional but not excessively sentimental account of a regular woman’s resistance to fascism. [Read the full review.]

Bupkis (Peacock)

“People think I’m, like, a joke for some reason,” Pete Davidson complains to his grandfather in the series premiere of Bupkis, a Peacock comedy that casts the SNL alum and tabloid magnet as a version of himself. Grandpa Joe, played by the semi-reclusive Joe Pesci in his first role since The Irishman, doesn’t flinch. “They see you as a joke because you are a joke,” he replies. “You run around like a kid, and you’re not a kid anymore. You’re a man.” What’s more: “You’re unhappy because all you do is try to make yourself happy. You should try to make somebody else happy once in a while.” Then he reveals he’s dying of cancer, the two vow to spend more time together, and Pete takes that promise as a hint that he should hire a sex worker for Joe.

It’s a silly episode—broad, sophomoric, and bookended by two stupid gags that place the star in cringe-worthy sexual situations involving members of his family. In other words, it’s precisely the kind of disappointment that viewers who already assume the worst of Davidson, with his chaotic presence in the celebrity news cycle, might have expected. The thing is, Davidson also has a talent for subverting expectations formed on the basis of a persona he can’t fully control. Like comedians from Richard Pryor to Larry David, he’s at his best when riffing on his public image. And, happily, the premiere is the weakest of Bupkis’ eight episodes. As the show progresses, it evolves into something as distinctive and authentic as it is messy. [Read the full review.]

Platonic (Apple TV+)

Can men and women be friends? It’s an ancient rom-com question, the one from When Harry Met Sally, and one that screenwriters will apparently never stop posing despite the ample real-world evidence that, yes, people can enjoy each other’s company across a largely illusory gender binary without sex coming into the equation. (Also, queer people exist.) Platonic, an Apple TV+ comedy series that reunites Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne, and their Neighbors director Nicholas Stoller, at least modifies the inquiry a bit. OK, it allows, maybe men and women can be friends. But can those relationships survive one or both of the pals’ marriage to another person?

It still isn’t an especially fresh premise, and characters who initially come across as types more than individuals don’t help distinguish the show, which premieres with a three-episode drop on May 24, from so many we’ve all seen before. But, like a crush on someone you thought you could never fall for, Platonic sneaks up on you. Each half-hour episode moves at a punchy pace. The dialogue is mostly sharp. Best of all, Byrne and Rogen are hilarious together—and the sense that they’re having a great time makes their misadventures a lot of fun to watch. [Read the full review.]

Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story (Netflix)

Inspired by the real Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a German duke’s daughter who married King George III in 1761 and who may or may not have had African ancestors, the show makes no attempt to avoid its heroine’s race. Star India Amarteifio—like Golda Rosheuvel, who plays Bridgerton’s older version of Charlotte and also appears in flash-forwards within this series—is of mixed racial heritage. And in Rhimes’ telling, Charlotte’s wedding to George (Corey Mylchreest) brings about a “Great Experiment” in integration that results in those diverse ball scenes we often see in Bridgerton. One beneficiary of this project is Lady Danbury (played by Arsema Thomas as a young woman and Adjoa Andoh in later years), a shrewd Black noblewoman who was marginalized before Charlotte’s arrival and who leverages her relationship with the queen to secure her family’s place in society.

It’s a neat explanation—and one that works well thematically, if not historically. Regardless of where and when they’re set, all stories worth telling have something to say about the time and place in which their creator and audience live; Rhimes’ reimagined 18th century England has much in common with the contemporary U.S. It’s a multicultural society, but one that is in the midst of a painful transformation. [Read the full essay: “How Queen Charlotte Fixes What Was Broken About Bridgerton“]

Silo (Apple TV+)

Sci-fi fans might have a new favorite show in this thoughtful Apple TV+ adaptation of the books by Hugh Howey. In a silo-shaped underground city that houses the last 10,000 people on Earth, it’s taken as an article of faith that the outside world is toxic to humans. That assumption comes into question when the wife (Rashida Jones) of the community’s sheriff (David Oyelowo) finds evidence that suggests powerful forces within the silo are hiding something major. At once a portrait of a dystopian society and a mystery investigated by a fascinating detective (Rebecca Ferguson), Silo is smart sci-fi grounded in skillful world-building and solid character development.

source https://time.com/6282488/best-tv-shows-may-2023/

Why Janet Yellen Doesn’t Lose Sleep Over U.S. Borrowing That Alarms Most Americans

Whether they favor debt-limit brinkmanship or not, most Americans are alarmed by the level of U.S. government borrowing. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen isn’t one of them.

Outstanding debt held by the public stood at $23.9 trillion as of the end of 2022. That’s 97% of gross domestic product, using the measure most popular among economists—roughly triple what it was 20 years earlier, and forecast to keep climbing. It’s a figure at the heart of the debt-ceiling fight now inching toward resolution.

“We have the highest debt than we ever had before,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy—who negotiated a deal with the Biden administration to trim outlays, and must steer it through Congress this week to avert a default – said on May 24. “I just don’t think that’s right.” Plenty of others, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, have warned that the U.S. debt trajectory is “unsustainable.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Don’t count Yellen among the alarmists, though. That’s partly because she’s using a different debt yardstick.

The former Fed chair, regarded by many as the country’s most experienced economic policymaker, shows little concern when reflecting on government spending. “That is not something to feel we’re in a catastrophic situation,” she told Bloomberg News in a May 13 interview.

‘Charged It Up’

One reason she’s sanguine is that Yellen is among a number of prominent economists to embrace an alternative method for measuring the sustainability of the nation’s debt. Instead of looking at the pile of outstanding bonds as a share of the economy’s output, she prefers the ratio of interest payments—crucially, after adjustment for inflation—to GDP.

In other words, take the amount of money the government spends on interest payments in a given year, divide by the size of the economy, then subtract inflation. The lower the outcome, the better.

With all the caveats that public finances and household budgets are fundamentally different things, the logic is similar to assessing the affordability of a mortgage. What matters most isn’t necessarily the amount borrowed, but how much a homeowner has to pay each month or year compared with their income over the same period.

McCarthy prefers the analogy of a credit card. He likened Democrats to a family that “charged it up, and year after year they just kept raising the limit, until they owed more money on the credit card than they make in an entire year.”

Using Yellen’s preferred measure, the larger public debt load hasn’t imposed much of an interest burden, at least so far.

The government’s interest bill has fallen in recent decades as a share of the economy, thanks to lower borrowing costs over the period. Net interest as a percentage of GDP, without adjusting for inflation, has averaged about 1.5%, though it climbed to 1.9% in 2022 after the pandemic borrowing surge.

Factor in inflation, and interest-to-GDP has frequently been negative, even before the burst of post-COVID price increases. Looking ahead, the White House Office of Management and Budget expects Yellen’s measure to rise back above zero in 2024, as inflation ebbs, and then to top out at 1.1% in 2032-33. That’s a level the Treasury secretary says is “quite reasonable.”

‘Inflated Away’

Jason Furman, a professor at Harvard University and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama, agrees. In a 2020 paper, he and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers argued that policymakers should aim to keep real net interest from rising above 2% of GDP.

The metric favored by Yellen is the right one to use, Furman says, because it’s important to factor in the opposite effects that interest costs and inflation have on the debt burden.

When rates and prices are both going up, Furman says that “in one sense, next year’s debt is even bigger than this year’s debt, because it goes up with interest. But in another sense, next year’s debt is smaller, because part of it is inflated away and so you don’t need to pay back as much.”

Still, Furman concedes the 2% threshold he and Summers arrived at for real net-interest-to-GDP is “arbitrary. It’s based on looking at the experience in other countries, the historical experience in the United States, our gut instinct, et cetera. I’m not positive it’s right.”

His co-author Summers, who is a paid contributor to Bloomberg Television, warned earlier this year that a rising debt burden could end up pushing interest rates higher, which adds pressure on the budget deficit and could turn into a “vicious cycle.”

‘Risk Management’

More than any precise level, it’s the trajectory of debt that can prove critical. One big threat for those who are watching Yellen’s metric is a scenario in which interest rates stay high even after inflation subsides. That would see debt-service costs add to the burden without being offset by rising prices, like they are now.

That, Yellen has acknowledged, would introduce considerable problems. But she doesn’t expect it to happen because she’s in the camp of economists who anticipate the low-inflation, low-rate regime that dominated the last two decades to return once the pandemic price surge is beaten down by the Fed.

Wendy Edelberg, a former chief economist at the Congressional Budget Office, says better budgeting will be needed in the long run, because “you can’t have the federal government taking action over time that perpetually reduces the amount of savings in the economy and perpetually crowds out ever more private investment.”

In the meantime, she advocates keeping an eye on a range of debt measures to figure out where danger may be lurking. “Part of this is just risk management,” she says.

source https://time.com/6283701/janet-yellen-debt/

New York City Is Slowly Sinking Under Its Own Weight, Study Finds

(NEW YORK) — If rising oceans aren’t worry enough, add this to the risks New York City faces: The metropolis is slowly sinking under the weight of its skyscrapers, homes, asphalt and humanity itself.

New research estimates the city’s landmass is sinking at an average rate of 1 to 2 millimeters per year, something referred to as “subsidence.”

That natural process happens everywhere as ground is compressed, but the study published this month in the journal Earth’s Future sought to estimate how the massive weight of the city itself is hurrying things along.

More than 1 million buildings are spread across the city’s five boroughs. The research team calculated that all those structures add up to about 1.7 trillion tons (1.5 trillion metric tons) of concrete, metal and glass — about the mass of 4,700 Empire State buildings — pressing down on the Earth.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The rate of compression varies throughout the city. Midtown Manhattan’s skyscrapers are largely built on rock, which compresses very little, while some parts of Brooklyn, Queens and downtown Manhattan are on looser soil and sinking faster, the study revealed.

While the process is slow, lead researcher Tom Parsons of the U.S. Geological Survey said parts of the city will eventually be under water.

Read more: Threatened by Sea Level Rise, This New Jersey Town is Taking Matters Into Its Own Hands

“It’s inevitable. The ground is going down, and the water’s coming up. At some point, those two levels will meet,” said Parsons, whose job is to forecast hazardous events from earthquakes and tsunamis to incremental shifts of the ground below us.

But no need to invest in life preservers just yet, Parsons assured.

The study merely notes buildings themselves are contributing, albeit incrementally, to the shifting landscape, he said. Parsons and his team of researchers reached their conclusions using satellite imaging, data modeling and a lot of mathematical assumptions.

It will take hundreds of years — precisely when is unclear — before New York becomes America’s version of Venice, which is famously sinking into the Adriatic Sea.

But parts of the city are more at risk.

“There’s a lot of weight there, a lot of people there,” Parsons said, referring specifically to Manhattan. “The average elevation in the southern part of the island is only 1 or 2 meters (3.2 or 6.5 feet) above sea level — it is very close to the waterline, and so it is a deep concern.”

Because the ocean is rising at a similar rate as the land is sinking, the Earth’s changing climate could accelerate the timeline for parts of the city to disappear under water.

Read more: So-Called ‘Green’ Cities Promise a Climate-Friendly Utopia. The Reality Is a Lot Messier

“It doesn’t mean that we should stop building buildings. It doesn’t mean that the buildings are themselves the sole cause of this. There are a lot of factors,” Parsons said. “The purpose was to point this out in advance before it becomes a bigger problem.”

Already, New York City is at risk of flooding because of massive storms that can cause the ocean to swell inland or inundate neighborhoods with torrential rain.

The resulting flooding could have destructive and deadly consequences, as demonstrated by Superstorm Sandy a decade ago and the still-potent remnants of Hurricane Ida two years ago.

“From a scientific perspective, this is an important study,” said Andrew Kruczkiewicz, a senior researcher at Columbia University’s Climate School, who was not involved in the research.

Its findings could help inform policy makers as they draft ongoing plans to combat, or at least forestall, the rising tides.

“We can’t sit around and wait for a critical threshold of sea level rise to occur,” he said, “because waiting could mean we would be missing out on taking anticipatory action and preparedness measures.”

New Yorkers such as Tracy Miles can be incredulous at first.

“I think it’s a made-up story,” Miles said. He thought again while looking at sailboats bobbing in the water edging downtown Manhattan. “We do have an excessive amount of skyscrapers, apartment buildings, corporate offices and retail spaces.”

New York City isn’t the only place sinking. San Francisco also is putting considerable pressure on the ground and the region’s active earthquake faults. In Indonesia, the government is preparing for a possible retreat from Jakarta, which is sinking into the Java Sea, for a new capital being constructed on the higher ground of an entirely different island.

source https://time.com/6283322/new-york-city-sinking/

Matthew Macfadyen Breaks Down the Succession Series Finale

Warning: This post contains spoilers for the Succession series finale

The boy from Saint Paul, Minn., did good for himself.

In the Succession series finale, GoJo’s billionaire CEO Lukas Matsson (Alexander Skarsgård) decides that Shiv (Sarah Snook) is too smart, too pushy, and too pregnant to be his American CEO. Tom Wambsgans (Matthew Macfadyen), on the other hand, is willing to be the “pain sponge” that Matsson needs to take the company into its new era. In a shocking twist, after agreeing with her brothers Kendall (Jeremy Strong) and Roman (Kieran Culkin) to tank the GoJo deal, Shiv changes her mind and votes to sell their family’s company to Matsson, knowing he plans to make Tom her father’s successor.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Read more: The Succession Timeline Is Much Tighter Than You Think

Tom’s rise to power was perhaps not HBO’s most shocking finale ever, especially for those fans who had been paying attention for the last four seasons. (Tom’s odd last name, as some fans have suggested, may have offered an early clue about Tom’s “triple play,” but, according to Macfadyen, you’ll have to ask the Succession writers about that.) But though Tom has always said he lives to serve, he’s now gone from being the Boar on the Floor to the man at the top.

Hours after Tom became Succession’s successor, Macfadyen got on a Zoom call from his home in London to talk about his character’s power moves (or lack thereof), not firing Greg, and where Tom and Shiv’s marriage goes from here.

TIME: How are you feeling this morning? Did you get a chance to watch the finale?

MACFADYEN: My wife [actor Keeley Hawes] and I watched this morning; they sent a link because it must have been two in the morning, my time, when it aired in the U.S. We shot [the finale] in January or February so you forget the shape of it. I’m always just impressed by how cleverly they fill it, the bits and pieces. How they make it much more elegant and cohesive because it always comes in over [time]. I know it’s a long episode, but I thought it was fantastic, really satisfying.

Creator Jesse Armstrong said that he has known for a while now that Tom would take over Waystar Royco, but when did you find out?

I had a chat with Jesse, around episode four or five [of this season]. He’d always been very open. He said, “If you want to know, come and see me.” I’d always chosen not to know because it’s kind of neither here nor there really. You just sort of play the episodes as they come in. But I thought I would quite fancy knowing because I thought it might very well be the last season. He laid out the story of the season, but then, of course, as an actor, you sort of forget about it. In a funny way you forget the details as a sort of self-protective thing because they may change their mind. Also, it’s really exciting when the scripts come in and you’re like, “Oh my god,” you know?

Tom becoming the CEO sort of made sense in an awful, inexorable way. The Roy siblings were sort of screwing each other over, and Shiv’s double dealing with Matsson and all the rest of it. What was really shocking was the tension of the board meeting and Shiv suddenly changing her mind. The scene afterwards was just magnificent. That was really exciting to read.

The final shot of Tom and Shiv in the car, together, but maybe not on the same page, with her hand resting on his so coldly, is a stunning image to close this chapter of their story. You are known for your impressive hand work in Pride and Prejudice. Did you and Sarah Snook discuss what you would do with your hands?

I think it was the stage direction of Jesse’s. Tom just offers a hand and she just quite regally and coldly places hers on his. I think it’s quite a restrained little moment and I think we sort of shot it as it was written. Tom’s not lording it over her, but I think they’re both quite, I don’t know—it was just a really sort of chilly scene. It’s full of a lot of stuff, which you always play and then you allow the audience to project [their thoughts] onto the scene. Jesse wrote this brilliant bit in the stage direction. He wrote, as they drive off in their SUV, they’re “two bombs being transported.” That’s all you need as an actor, the rest is your imagination.

I did wonder, and this might be me being too much of a romantic, but, by choosing to vote for the deal, does Shiv essentially choose Tom, maybe for the first time ever in their time together?

The truth is, I don’t know, but I never thought that she chose Tom. I thought she had not chosen her brother. I don’t think she knows she’s going to do that until she’s in the boardroom and they’re going around the room asking for people’s votes. It’s not like a rational decision, I think it’s just sort of visceral. “I can’t stomach Kendall.” It’s such a big thing to do, especially after Matsson has dumped her quite appallingly, you know?

Very true. For Shiv, this decision feels like a means to an end, but for Tom, it’s a new beginning. Do you think there is a path forward for them? Where do you think they are days, weeks, months after the vote?

I haven’t given it any thought. I sort of idly wonder, but, I mean, it’s not useful.

I kind of appreciate that stance. Essentially, you’ve done your part and now it’s over.

I don’t know, it’d be good fun [to think about it], but, yeah, it’s done.

Read more: 15 Shows to Watch After Succession

I’ve read that Shiv’s pregnancy wasn’t originally a plot point. It was added once Sarah Snook revealed her own real-life pregnancy. When did you find out that Shiv would be pregnant? Did it affect how you played this relationship?

It’s a great plot development. I don’t know whether they would’ve done it anyway [if Snook weren’t pregnant]. The honest answer is, I don’t know the exact timelines, but I thought it worked really well. It’s a really sort of awful thing to add into the mix, you know? She doesn’t tell him, and then when she does, it’s when he’s at his most fraught and he says, “Is it a tactic? Is it true?” It’s all awful.

For many, the real love story of Succession is between Tom and Greg, played by Nicholas Braun. In the end, Tom keeps Greg around, despite the fact that he sold him out by telling Kendall about Matsson’s plan to ditch Shiv. Tom tells Greg, “I got you,” and puts that purple sticker on his forehead. The same sticker that was being used to divide up Logan’s things. What does all of this actually mean?

I think Tom can’t help but admire Greg’s deviousness. Greg is quite an operator. I think Tom is like, “Well, he’s f-cked me over, but he’s done it really well. I’d rather have him on my side.” I just thought it was great, the sticker. He just kept those stickers after the fight [with Shiv]. But I think the real love story in this show—and it’s been particularly poignant this season—is with Tom and Shiv. They’ve really tried. It’s been very, very sad and then quite hopeful. You think, “Well, maybe they will [figure it out].” [Snook and I] had that wonderful scene on the balcony in episode seven. We’ve had a really lovely journey together since the beginning of the whole show really. It’s been so much fun.

As the actor playing these emotional scenes, were you rooting for Tom and Shiv to work things out?

No, I don’t really root for my characters. You just play what’s in front of you, but inevitably, because it’s sort of flowing through you, you find yourself leaning one way or the other. I guess the writers may pick up on that. The lovely thing about long-form TV is that the writers sort of see how you’re playing certain things and then add it into a theme for the next episode. It’s just been a real pleasure to do, to chart that journey.

Tom and Greg come to blows in this episode. We see these two very tall guys fight in a very tiny bathroom.

It was very, very small. There was nowhere to go and the cameraman, the lovely camera operator, Gregor, was with us in a very small room. It was a temp [room] so the walls are made of cheese. Everything with Nick is a joy and this was no exception. I trust him and he trusts me, and so we just went for it. We did it three or four times; I think they got a good take. The one they used, he really belts me.

I was going to ask, because he looked like he gave you a good shot to the face. I like that you trusted him enough to let him just slap you like that.

To me, as an actor, you’re always pulling back a little bit, but we just thought, “Let’s go for it.” We’re not trying to knock each other’s heads off, but it should be sort of rough and messy and silly.

The dinner scene in which Matsson tells Tom that he wants to sleep with his wife is also a bit rough and messy and silly.

I love the scene. I love acting with Alex, he’s just a fantastic, brilliant, gifted actor. That was a real pleasure and a weird scene. When [Lukas] said, “We have a clickety-click,” and Tom, not missing a beat, [says], “We’re men.” But he’s not expecting that offer [to be CEO], I don’t think. He just doesn’t want to get fired. He wants to keep his job at ATN, so it’s not like he’s angling for it.

It’s funny too because Tom is always telling Greg that he approaches life as if it’s a chess match. The insinuation being that he’s one step ahead of everyone.

There is no chess match; there’s no strategy. I think that’s the same with everybody. You see it with Kendall and I mean, it’s ridiculous. There’s a plan and then it goes wrong and there’s another plan and it gets thwarted and another plan and it’s just not what he wants. It’s the sort of vanity of people being in control and none of them are. Maybe there’s something to be said for Tom who’s like, “Well, I’ll just adapt.” Greg is like that as well.

Succession deals with the 1% of the 1%. For many viewers it’s at once funny, but also horrifying to see the power Logan and his family have over the world. Has Succession changed the way you see the world?

We did the pilot on Election Day in 2016, just before Donald Trump was elected. You’re aware of the absurdity of everything. Of thinking that the people in control know what they’re doing and realizing maybe they don’t. Weirdly, that’s sort of comforting and scary at the same time. Maybe it’s healthy to sort of see it for what it is, and not be afraid to call it out if something feels wrong.

Read more: Ditching a Phone Case Is the Latest Symbol of Stealth Wealth

I know you’ve said that saying goodbye to this show is a complicated thing, especially after all these years, and all the bonds that have been formed. I read that the cast would partake in what you called a “Succession supper club” while filming. Can you talk about these special dinners? Did they play a role in the character dynamics we saw on screen?

No, it was just a lovely social [activity]. When you’re shooting a show, you are all a bit separated. You’re doing your thing and you’re not always shooting together so the weeks would go by and you’d think, “Oh, I’m not seeing these people on set.” We all just thought, “Let’s make it a thing that we go out for dinner.” A bunch of us would just go out and try different restaurants. It was good fun.

I don’t want to put you on the spot, but is there a Succession castmate who made for the best dinner companion?

There’s no one particular person, but Jeremy [Strong] was brilliant. He would know the best places. Nick is very good about that as well. Nick and I would sort of collude on ordering things. We’d order a lot because we’d worry about missing out. It’s lovely being with the people you are playing these demented characters with in real life. Inevitably after six years, there’s great friendship and fondness for all those guys. I feel very lucky that it was the rhythm of my life. I still think, “Well, in six months, they’ll get the writers room back together and we’ll go back and shoot another.”

I think there are fans who would love to see what Tom does as the new CEO of Waystar.

Can you imagine?

source https://time.com/6283317/matthew-macfadyen-tom-wambsgans-succession-finale/

What Erdoğan’s Victory Means for Turkey—and the World

The Erdoğan era lives on. This much was assured on Sunday after Turkey’s longtime leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emerged victorious in the presidential runoff against opposition challenger Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

That Erdoğan managed to survive the single biggest test to his leadership is remarkable given the state of Turkey’s economy and lingering public anger over the government’s response to powerful earthquakes in February that left at least 50,000 people dead. What his victory means for Turkey’s future, as well as the wider world, is the question now on many minds.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

For Turkey, Erdoğan’s third and final term will mean “a continuation of today,” says Galip Dalay, an associate fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank. Under Erdoğan, who first came to power as Turkey’s Prime Minister in 2003 (a role in which he served for 11 years before becoming President in 2014), the country has backslid into authoritarianism. He has consolidated power through constitutional changes, eroded the country’s democratic institutions, including the judiciary and the media, and jailed opponents and critics, many of them journalists. His efforts have earned Turkey the designation of being one of the world’s top 10 autocratizing countries, according to Sweden’s V-Dem Institute. In 2018, Freedom House downgraded the country’s status from “partly free” to “not free.”

With a further five years at the helm, it’s unlikely that Erdoğan will choose to change tack on his domestic agenda. If anything, he is likely to go even further. “When autocrats face an unstable domestic context, they double down on repression,” says Gonul Tol, the author of Erdoğan War: A Strongman’s Struggle at Home and in Syria. While Erdoğan could plausibly bow to pressure to return to more orthodox economic policies in order to restore financial stability in the country (a move that he appeared to foreshadow by including his former economic czar, Mehmet Şimşek, at a campaign event), Tol says that Erdoğan is unlikely to relent when it comes restoring the country’s democratic credibility. “We’ve come to a point [where] he’s undermined rights and institutions to such an extent that we cannot call Turkey a democracy anymore,” she says, noting international electoral observers’ verdict that Turkish elections, while ostensibly free and competitive, are nonetheless unfair. “We are coming to a point where Turkey will turn into a country where elections may not matter.”

The repercussions of Erdoğan’s victory won’t just be confined to Turkey. It will have major international consequences—not least for NATO. Unlike the alliance’s other members, Turkey has gone out of its way to forge close ties with Russia. In 2017, Ankara controversially agreed to purchase an S-400 missile defense system from Moscow. While most other countries have sanctioned Russia in the aftermath of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Turkey has continued to do business with Moscow. In a recent interview with CNN, Erdoğan touted his “special relationship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin and reaffirmed Turkey’s lone opposition to Sweden joining NATO. (Ankara previously blocked Finland and Sweden from joining the military alliance, citing concerns over their support for Kurdish militants that Turkey and the U.S. consider terrorist organizations; while it ultimately lifted its opposition to Finland, who has since become NATO’s 31st member, its veto on Stockholm’s accession stands.)

Over the next five years, “You’ll see the strengthening of that [Erdoğan-Putin] relationship further,” Tol says. “He’s used the Sweden and Finland accession into NATO as a trump card to extract concessions from the Western world. And he has in many ways, so he’s going to try to milk that further.”

Still, most analysts expect that Erdoğan will ultimately acquiesce to Swedish membership—if not before NATO’s upcoming Vilnius summit in July, then perhaps by the end of the year. “Erdoğan cherishes Turkey’s presence in NATO because he thinks that it gives him further leverage in international affairs,” says Dalay. Indeed, Erdoğan has sought to portray Turkey as a valuable diplomatic mediator between Russia and the West, and has pushed to convene peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, just as it helped broker a key grain export deal between the warring countries last year.

Erdoğan’s victory could also have decisive consequences for the roughly 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. While Erdoğan did not go so far as Kılıçdaroğlu in vowing to expel all refugees from the country—a move the latter made following the first round of voting, in an apparent bid to chip away at his rival’s support among nationalists—Erdoğan noted that his government’s plans to build hundreds of thousands of homes in northern Syria would facilitate their voluntary return.

As much as a lot will depend on how Erdoğan chooses to define his last term—and, by extension, his own legacy—a lot will also depend on how the world chooses to respond to his victory, particularly the West. In the global battle between democracy and authoritarianism, Turkey is regarded as firmly within the latter’s camp, alongside fellow backsliding countries Hungary, India, and Brazil.

“Is the West ready to confront a more authoritarian Turkey?” asks Gonul. “Or are they going to keep this transactional relationship and say, ‘As long as Erdoğan keeps Syrian refugees in Turkey, we can work with him, we can tolerate him.’”

source https://time.com/6282763/erdogan-turkey-election-victory/

Erdoğan Has Won His Biggest Election Test Yet. Here’s What to Know

Turkey’s longest-running leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will stay on as President for another five-year term, after a first-of-its-kind runoff election on Sunday saw him secure victory over his rival, opposition alliance candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.

With over 98% of this Sunday’s votes counted, Erdoğan became the clear poll winner after securing 52.1% of the vote to Kılıçdaroğlu’s 47.9%, according to the state Anadolu news agency.

“I thank each member of our nation for entrusting me with the responsibility to govern this country once again for the upcoming five years,” Erdoğan said.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The only winner today is Turkey,” he added.

The 69-year-old Erdoğan, who has led Turkey since 2003, defied polls in the first round of voting on May 14 that had showed Kılıçdaroğlu with the edge. Public anger has mounted in Turkey over the government’s response to the deadly earthquakes earlier this year that left at least 50,000 dead and runaway inflation that critics pin on his unwonted economic policies. It’s not the first political challenge Erdoğan has faced: his party, the Islamist Justice and Development (AK) Party, lost its hold over Parliament in 2015, and a failed coup attempt in 2016 sought to remove him from power. But this year’s vote has been the most significant electoral challenge to Erdoğan’s rule in 20 years.

With the election victory, Erdoğan will only continue to erode Turkey’s democratic institutions and stifle political dissent, says İhsan Yılmaz, research professor and Chair of Islamic Studies and Intercultural Dialogue at Deakin University in Australia. “There are tens of thousands—politicians, journalists, and academics in prisons now—based on fabricated charges,” Yılmaz says. “He can send a few more; that won’t be difficult for him.”

Erdoğan rivals, including Kılıçdaroğlu, capitalized on growing discontent and campaigned on a pledge to reverse Turkey’s long slide toward authoritarianism. But Erdoğan was the favorite entering the second round of voting after he defied polls and emerged as the clear frontrunner with a nearly-five percentage point lead over Kılıçdaroğlu earlier this month, albeit falling short of the 50% threshold to win on the first ballot.

In the lead-up to the second round of voting, Erdoğan continued to court nationalists and campaigned heavily on security issues. He went as far as sharing fake videos that falsely imply his opponent had links to the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that has waged a decades-long fight for a separate state for some 10 million Kurds in Turkey. (Kılıçdaroğlu has disavowed the PKK and the group attacked his convoy in 2016.)

The election skewed further in Erdoğan’s favor this week after Sinan Oğan, a far-right nationalist who came third in the first-round election with some 5% of the vote, threw his support behind the Turkish President.

Kılıçdaroğlu and his allies, meanwhile, cast doubts on the veracity of the ballot data in the first round. He also appealed to nationalists by moving away from earlier campaign messages of inclusivity and vowed to expel refugees if he was elected; Turkey is home to almost 4 million refugees. But not even the support of major parties in the days before the polls were able to shore up the presidency.

Yılmaz tells TIME that Kılıçdaroğlu faced a steep uphill battle from the onset. Erdoğan and his allies control or influence key levers of the state, he says, including the media and judiciary. Kılıçdaroğlu’s Republican People’s Party (CHP) is also “weak, especially in rural areas, especially in eastern parts of Turkey and in Anatolia, in small towns and villages, so they cannot watch the ballot boxes, unfortunately,” Yılmaz adds. “This is where Erdoğan’s party is very powerful.”

source https://time.com/6282778/erdogan-wins-turkey-election/