in fact, i remember paul johnson before the election saying, guess what, guys?ody is being straight with you. taxes are going to have to go up, spending is going to have to come down. and now we're supposed to believe, according to keir starmer, that actually everything is worse now that he's behind the black door of downing street. and also, i'm so confused because, you know, he can afford the big wage increases for public sector workers. they can afford to be spanking 5 to 10 billion on a broken asylum system . david broken asylum system. david lammy can afford to suddenly come up with 100 million to throw a country's overseas to increase international aid, because he thinks that's going to reduce immigration, which is baloney. but now we're asked to believe that actually the finances are really tight and taxes are going to go up. and we all better get ready for this tough time. i don't think labour is actually making any difficult choices. i think labour is basically telling us what their political priorities are, which are to keep mass immigration ongoing, t

, you sometimes listen to radio 4 and you mistake yourself for thinking i voted as a voter for paul johnsonand a budget is a political event, i'm sorry.- but i really don't want your calculator and your abacus to forget the british people. she will have to have a sense of history. she's the first female chancellor. i want to see a moment that rises to history as a voter. so i want a rabbit in her hat. i know she's going to... i've already been told she's got a club in her hat, but she's going to have to have if she wants to read what other chancellors have done ever since there's been a red briefcase, she's going to have to have a rabbit in the hat. so she's obviously going to have a surprise on october 30th that will flatter the voter. that's obviously coming. and you left that off your list, jo, because you've been drinking the poison. ok, well, hopefully the poison doesn't kick in. i've been dutifully told. i feel our gimmick of sticking to keir starmers week and linking it with oasis lyrics is in danger of dying out so let's get back to it. so on wednesday, he was in berlin and then wen

but, i mean, i have to say, adam, paul johnson, whom we rely on heavily at the institute for fiscal studiesve actually boxed themselves in by not saying that they would raise those three taxes. if they had, would they have won the election? i don't know. i mean, ifeel very, sort of much that i've heard everything from the ifs, and they're not actually the government, are they? no. i mean, you sometimes listen to radio four and you mistake yourself for thinking i voted as a voter for pauljohnson, but i didn't. and a budget is a political event, i'm sorry.- but i really don't want your calculator and your abacus to forget the british people. she will have to have a sense of history. she's the first female chancellor. i want to see a moment that rises to history as a voter. so i want a rabbit in her hat. i know she's going to. i've already been told she's got a club in her hat, but she's going to have to have if she wants to read what other chancellors have done. ever since there's been a red briefcase, she's going to have to have a rabbit in the hat. so she's obviously going to have a surpris

there is another great book called "the history of the american people" by paul johnson. he loves americans. and he tells our story in the most beautiful way. and he talks about the founders of our country and he said in any other generation it would have been amazing to have one of these people on the scene but we had dozens of them and you know all of these names and he compares it to the people advising king george the third and england and he said the talent difference between these groups of people, i love this phrase was as deep as the atlantic that separated them. wow. that is our heritage as americans. we come and this has been passed on from one generation to another to another to another to another. and so the question becomes, what do we do with this gift that has been given to us? we were not present at the founding. we did not come up with this. but it has been turned over from one generation to another and now it is in your lap. and the question is, what do you do about that? do you say, i cannot handle it? it is too big, too overwhelming, too tough? no, you

paul chaplin will be speaking to guy johnson and kriti gupta. plenty more on daybreak europe coming up for you. so stay with us. this is bloomberg. ♪ lizzy: welcome back to bloomberg daybreak: europe. i just want to take you through that european data that we are getting, it's a big day for a. pmi's and negotiated wages coming out of the ecb later today. the ecb reaction function, it seems, is already pivoting to focus on this slower wage growth, growth concerns as well, rather than this sticky services inflation. these are almost really important today. he to see that actually euros on manufacturing pmi's have been soft. flip the board, you can see the story of negotiated wage growth slowing at the far right of that chart. but even before all of that data, if we flip the board again, we seen the euro rising to a year to date high. you could see the momentum behind this is strong. currently we are trading at about 111, so weaker .10%. by year to date high. we will keep an eye on the euro as we head to jackson hole. starting out today we are not

i've also requested documents along with senators paul, blumenthal and johnson related to security preparations, intelligence garthing on potential violence prior to the attack, and detailed explanations of the security response from federal, state and local authorities. as part of our ongoing investigation, we also seek to speak with additional federal law enforcement personnel, including secret service agents who were responsible for securing the event. today's hearing is an important opportunity to ask critical questions and to begin to give the american people the transparency and the answers that they certainly deserve. there are still many unanswered questions. we need additional information about the secret service's advanced planning efforts, the decisions surrounding sniper and countersniper team use, placement and coordination. we also need answers about what appears to be a problematic communication system that limited efforts to relay information and respond to events as they unfolded real-time. and while today is focused on asking difficult questions about what went wrong, i also w

cotton, cramer, crapo, daines, fischer, graham, grassley, hagerty, hyde-smith, johnson, kennedy, mcconnell, moran, murkowski, paulcketts, rounds, rubio, schmitt, thune, tillis, tuberville. the clerk: mr. cruz, no. mr. markey, aye. the clerk: mr. wicker, no. ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. hawley, aye. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. marshall, no. ms. lummis, no. the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. lankford, no. ms. ernst, no. the clerk: mr. young, no. ms. rosen, aye. the clerk: ms. -- the clerk: ms. warren, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, no. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: mr. sanders, no. the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, no. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. vote: the presid the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. the clerk: mr. schumer, no. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 44. three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn have

guest: i agree with paul that the atmospherics are a lotdiffe, not only did you have the political upheaval after lyndon johnson, who was leading a very unpopular war, decided to drop from seeking election. you also had basically the decade of the 1960's, which were filled with racial unrest political unrest, almost believe 1968, even though it was the end of the decade, that became almost like an ignition point for the decade. and i really think a different atmosphere now. i don't see, necessarily, the point that chicago in this democratic convention is going to face the upheavals that were represented. in 1968, we obviously have different political leadership in the city. you mentioned about the 1996 convention, which was the renomination of bill clinton, and you heard very few people talk about that. and that convention went off really without a hitch, but everybody refers back to 1968 and automatically harkens to those dark times. i just don't think we are anywhere close to that, as we approach the convention tomorrow. host: let's hear from david in new york on our line from republicans. good morning, david

secretary jeh johnson served as homeland security leader and as general counsel of the department of defense and with the air force. he's currently in private practice with the firm of paul weiss yes he started his law practice. he's on the board of directors of lockheed martin and the counsel of foreign relations so i give you secretary johnson. thank you. [applause] sec. johnson: good afternoon, everybody. i'm going to keep new further suspense. i do have some things i'd luetic to share with you which, time permitting, we'll do at the end of the program here. i do want to say this. as many of you might know, t.s.a. is part of the department of homeland security. everybody here loves t.s.a., right? raise your hand. [laughter] so i have interesting experiences now when i go through airports. not too long ago, i was waiting at a gate and a woman came up to me and she said to me, sir, i'm from the united kingdom and my son back home in london deeply admires you and everything you did in office. and she was -- she took out her iphone and she was queuing up the camera finishes for a selfie and she said it would be a great honor if i could have a selfie with you. ics i'm so f

johnson. i was honored to vote for jo jorgensen. and him happy to be carrying the flag for them in this party in 2024. host: paul in connecticut. morning. caller: good morning. how far are you going to go with this libertarian cabin? i understand the philosophy. i understand the philosophy. eileen libertarian. however, the 1.6 million recipients of dollars in housing, are you going to throw them out? and second, what about unfettered capitalism and the role of government in regulating that exportation? and then i will correct you. there will be no rebuilding of gaza with a military occupation. and that is what we are supporting. there is an escalating war in lebanon and israel. your words ring hollow. your voice in the wind, wavering. so, housing, and your view that gaza will be rebuilt. guest: well, on federal housing, you don't throw people out. i say that any move away from government is not flipping the lightswitch. it is gradual. we did not get to the scope of government we have overnight. it took many steps to get there. it will take many steps for us to refuse this. eventually we are going to have to remove the federal h

johnson. breaking news. the united states and russia have agreed to a prisoner swap that will see the release of wall street reporter evan gershkovich and paulwhelan. the journal and the state department consistently said that the charges were false against gershkovich. the united states said whelan was also wrongfully detained. nancy cordes is at the white house with what we're learning. good morning. >> reporter: good morning nate. this is indelong sought by the biden administration with many stops and starts. we are told that these individuals but u.s. officials have always argued that she was doing exactly what evan was doing in russia which was reporting the news just as journalists have done there for decades. >> nancy. thank you very much. joining us now on the phone is john sullivan a former u.s. ambassador to moscow. good morning, john. great to have you with us, your perspective not only on the gravity of the deal but its complexity. >> well, good morning, great to be with you. it's a great day for those individuals who are being released and their families. it's -- it's been a long time as nancy noted. it's been almost six years o

johnson? more backgrounds they were not that different how they govern for a quick thank you paul.it was surprisingly good. they were both tough politicians. and i think in 1968 you could say lbj was more for nixon then he was for humphrey, for his own vice president. humphrey is being seduced by the piece part of the peace awake and the democratic party to try to end the vietnam war by retreating. johnson won stay the course a little more thought nixon n woud be a smarter, tougher, prosecutor of his policies in vietnam than humphrey. so right there the democratic president is in some ways more sympathetic to the republican challenger than his own vice president.pr you have to stop and think of the pieces fit together but that's true whether it's historical evidence. i don't my friend at texas a&m believe that. so there is that. there was an affinity of tough smart politician the club a very practical hardball politicians. lbj and nixon had a bond of love to the hard thing politics let's not be soft. they overdid that but i think there's some mutual respect there.ev >> evan thomas

johnson? they had similar backgrounds and they weren't that different in terms of how they governed. >> thank you, paul. the relationship was surprisingly good. they were both tough politicians. i think a 1968, you could say that lbj was in a way more for nixon than he was for humphrey. his own vice president. because humphrey was being seduced by the peace party and the democratic party to end the vietnam war by retreating. and johnson wanted to stay the course and he felt nixon would be a smarter, tougher, prosecutor of his policies in vietnam. then humphrey. so, right there, the democratic president is in some ways more sympathetic to the republican challenger to his own vice president. we have to stop and think, how these pieces fit together. but i think that's true and there's historical evidence. i know my friend luke nichter at texas a&m believes that and is working to show that. so there's that. but there is an affinity of being tough, smart politicians. the club of very practical, very hardball politicians. and i think lbj and nixon had a bond of, let's do the hard thing in politics but let's

my name is paul regina and my question is let me tell you, it's been written about ad nausea and about nixon and the kennedys and johnson and the kennedys . my question is what was the relationship between nixon and johnson . they had similar backgrounds and were different as to how they governed. >> guest: the relationship was surprisingly good. they were both tough politicians and i think in 1968 you could say that lbj was more for nixon and he was for humphrey because humphrey was being seduced by the democratic party to try to end the vietnam war by retreating . and johnson wanted to stay the course a little bit more and thought nixon would be a smarter , tougher prosecutor of his policies invietnam but not for each other. right there the democratic president in some ways was more sympathetic to the republican challenger to his own vice president sort of thinking how these pieces fit together but i think that's true . i know my friend luke richter believes that, but we don't know that. so there's that but there is an affinity of tough politicians, the club of very practical, very hardball politicians and i think lbj

guest: i agree with paul that the atmospherics are a lot different between then and now, not only did you have the political upheaval after lyndon johnsonleading a very unpopular war, decided to drop from seeking election. also had basically the decade of the 1960's, which were political unrest, and itt, believe 1968, even though it was the end of the decade, that became almost like an ignition point for the decade. and i really think a different atmosphere now. i don't see, necessarily, the point that chicago in this democratic convention is going to face the upheavals that were represented. in 1968, we obviously have different political leadership in the city. you mentioned about the 1996 convention, which was the renomination of bill clinton, and you heard very few people talk about that. and that convention went off really without a hitch, but everybody refers back to 1968 and automatically harkens to those dark times. i just don't think we are anywhere close to that, as we approach the convention tomorrow. host: let's hear from david in new york on our line from republicans. good morning, david. caller: yes, good morning. hi, rick.

guest: i agree with paul that the atmospherics are a lot different between then and now, not only did you have the political upheaval after lyndon johnsons leading a very unpopular war, decided to drop from seekingion. you also had basically the deca othe 1960's, which were filled with racial unrest, political unrest, and i almost believe 1968, even though it was the end of the decade, that became almost like an ignition point for the decade. and i really think a different atmosphere now. i don't see, necessarily, the point that chicago in this democratic convention is going to face the upheavals that were represented. in 1968, we obviously have different political leadership in the city. you mentioned about the 1996 convention, which was the renomination of bill clinton, and you heard very few people talk about that. and that convention went off really without a hitch, but everybody refers back to 1968 and automatically harkens to those dark times. i just don't think we are anywhere close to that, as we approach the convention tomorrow. host: let's hear from david in new york on our line from republicans. good morning, david. caller: y

johnson. i was honored to vote for jo jorgensen. and him happy to be carrying the flag for them in this party in 2024. host: paul in connecticut.ning. caller: good morning. how far are you going to go with this libertarian cabin? i understand the philosophy. i understand the philosophy. eileen libertarian. however, the 1.6 million recipients of dollars in housing, are you going to throw them out? and second, what about unfettered capitalism and the role of government in regulating that exportation? and then i will correct you. there will be no rebuilding of gaza with a military occupation. and that is what we are supporting. there is an escalating war in lebanon and israel. your words ring hollow. your voice in the wind, wavering. so, housing, and your view that gaza will be rebuilt. guest: well, on federal housing, you don't throw people out. i say that any move away from government is not flipping the lightswitch. it is gradual. we did not get to the scope of government we have overnight. it took many steps to get there. it will take many steps for us to refuse this. eventually we are going to have to remove the federal housi

paul coates here. >> good morning. good morning. good morning. right. what should we talk about katie . we talk about katie. >> katie. >> katie. >> yes katrina johnson thompson'd won an olympic medal, but she's won two world championships. never won an olympic medal. >> i did not know that. >> i did not know that. >> yeah, i think this year might be her year though i think so. looking good. >> she is looking very good. well she's in first place because this is the heptathlon there. she is there, by the way , there. she is there, by the way, what do you think of the new kit they're wearing? it's very dark. >> i don't love it. >>— >> i don't love it. >> it's almost black, isn't it. >> it's almost black, isn't it. >> it's. but. yeah, but it's a very dark blue. very nice. i like it, i like it. it's a little different. it used to be the old day. used to be the white vest. the white singlet. single singlet with a blue and red stripe across. it used to be the old look, but anyway , the old look, but anyway, there's katie. she actually had a very good day yesterday. good start in the hurdles which is the 100 metre hurdles then followed by the high jump. which was th

johnson. >> oscar redrup joins us in the studio. oscar, just looking at the response we're getting, we're getting a big response coming in from people. this message from paultoday, dear prime minister, i've got a novel idea for you. instead of instantly spouting tough sounding soundbites, try listening to people's concerns. attempt to understand them and try to address them. because if you don't, people will listen to anyone who does extremist or not. i see the sense of that now. a lot of people may say, dismiss these people who are rioting on the streets, but if we do that, the anger doesn't go away . we don't understand what away. we don't understand what their problem is, what's your view? >> i think there's probably a balancing act on that front. i think he will have a lot of people around him. and i think rightly so. who is saying. right, well, you know, we are experiencing, you know, rioting and, you know, you can justify or you can contextualise, but ultimately debased criminality. and so from a policing and safety perspective , we need to safety perspective, we need to get on top of that now potentially set himself up for, a slight fall because and