Heroes: Progressive vs Regressive 

 

‘It seems I’m the victim of natural selection 

Meet me on the other side, another direction’ 

 

We start this social comparison by considering the reaction of two very different people to the governments proposal to deal with ‘illegal’ immigration. 

For the progressives we have Gary Lineker who, last week, Tweeted that the proposals were akin to Nazi Germany. Any mention and comparison to Nazism is controversial, however Lineker made his point well, and is entitled to voice his opinion, its known as the freedom of speech. 

The Regressive’s have won the first round, Linaker has been banned from presenting MotD. Round 2 goes to the Progressives as football and the much of the public have come out in support for Lineker, viewing the BBC as a spineless government agency, and the attempt to gag his as a clear assault on democracies freedom of speech. 

There have been numerous tweets of support for Linaker, my favourite was from the former Manchester United and England defender Gary Neville, a commentator for Sky Sports, said the decision was what happened when ‘you take on the Tories and the system‘ 

What this really calls into question is the editorial independence of the BBC. Is it supportive of freedom of speech for its personnel or an extension of government policy? Does BBC now stand for Broadcasting on Behalf of the Conservatives? 

 

‘Does BBC now stand for Broadcasting on Behalf of the Conservatives?’

 

The Tories and their cheerleaders may not like being compared to Nazis, but banning media that isn’t supportive of them, only serves to prove them guilty.  

People might be better exercising their concerns as why the Conservative party donor Richard Sharp has not yet resigned as BBC chair in the light of the clear conflicts of interest the revelations about Boris Johnson’s finances have revealed. 

It is little wonder that Italy’s regressive far-right deputy PM, Matteo Salvini, praised Sunak’s potentially illegal migration bill as, ‘Harsh but fair.’  

In a post on Instagram, Salvini, leader of the far-right League, quoted a tweet by Sunak, translated into Italian, in which Sunak said: ‘If you arrive illegally in the UK, you can’t claim asylum; you can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections; you can’t make spurious human rights claims; you can’t stay‘. 

Next week we have the budget to look forward to, another example of progression versus regression. The latter clamouring for tax cuts, and telling us the old story that neo-liberal trickle-down which make us all prosperous. 

For the progressives, let’s start by considering this week’s US budget blueprint from President Biden,  which would cut the federal deficit by nearly $3tn over the next decade, driven by raising taxes on corporations and high earners. Also included are proposals aimed at lowering the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, childcare, housing and education while making new investments in domestic manufacturing, cancer research and a paid family leave program. 

There are also plans to restore the child tax credit that helped reduce child poverty by 50% when Congress temporarily expanded the benefit during the pandemic. Under Biden’s plan, families could claim as much as $3,600 a child, compared with the current level of $2,000. 

Biden said his budget was about creating ‘a little bit more breathing room‘ for American families and those who have been ‘invisible for a long time‘. 

Regressive’s such as House speaker Kevin McCarthy and other top Republicans accused Biden of ‘shrugging and ignoring‘ the national debt, which they called one of the ‘greatest threats to America’. 

In a joint statement they said; ‘President Biden’s budget is a reckless proposal doubling down on the same far-left spending policies that have led to record inflation and our current debt crisis.’  

Representing progression, Democrats such as Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said Biden’s budget would ‘affect every single family from coast to coast‘. 

Climate groups praised the proposed investments in clean energy jobs and plans to end oil and gas subsidies. 

In a statement, Varshini Prakash, the executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said Biden’s plan was the ‘kind of thing young people in this country want to see ahead of 2024‘. 

 

‘the Institute of Directors (‘IoD’) is asking the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, to be more than a bean counter in the forthcoming budget and  to implement our own version of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (‘IRA’)’

 

Over our side of the pond it would seem that people are taking notice of Biden’s policies; the Institute of Directors (‘IoD’) is asking the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, to be more than a bean counter in the forthcoming budget and  to implement our own version of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (‘IRA’). 

The IRA is a $370bn package of protectionism, state aid and subsidies designed to galvanise American business in the fight against climate change. The IoD warning that ‘short-term budgetary concerns’ should not be allowed to trump the ‘strategic imperative of establishing market leadership positions in green business‘. 

Unfortunately it is anticipated that Hunt will introduce modest measures to stimulate investment and boost employment. His priorities are to cutting the budget deficit, taking no risks with inflation and to keep the financial markets happy. Post-Truss the it’s a return to financial orthodoxy, the Treasury is back in control of the public finances, and the BoE is fighting inflation. 

Put another way, it’s a rerun of George Osborne’s austerity shock treatment in 2010. 

The difference is that in 2010, Osborne insisted there was no alternative to austerity, and convinced the electorate that Labour was to blame for the global financial crisis. Rubbish it might have been, but voters  fell for it. 

 

‘it’s a rerun of George Osborne’s austerity shock treatment in 2010’

 

Post-2010 the economic performance has been dire, although the double whammies of Brexit in 2016 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 are partly to blame. It was the least prosperous parts of the UK that voted ‘leave’, a clear sign of deep discontent.  

The pandemic saw a level of state intervention unprecedented in peacetime; a right-wing government paid the wages of millions of workers, provided grants to businesses, tax breaks and soft loans, and took over the running of the railways.  

Whilst well intentioned other interventions, such as cutting interest rates and QE only served to further inflate asset prices, with the net result that already comfortable homeowners were the main beneficiaries, further widening the gap between rich and poor. 

 

‘already comfortable homeowners were the main beneficiaries, further widening the gap between rich and poor’

 

Compared to 2010 the electorates views on economic issues favour Labour, with broad support for strikers, for a return to state ownership of the public utilities, and for higher government spending funded by higher taxation. Whereas Hunt’s expected budget assumes that, Britain is a conservative country that won’t accept change. 

But would voters be terrified by a government that said the lesson from the past 15 years was that Britain needed an industrial strategy designed to level up and to hit net-zero targets? Would they reject out of hand the idea that greening the economy will require billions of pounds of investment from the public and private sectors? Does nurturing the growth sectors of the future really sound scarily radical given what Biden is doing on the other side of the Atlantic? 

Tokenism needs to be replaced. The energy price guarantee, was a U-turn on the policy announced in the autumn by No 11, sold as compassionate conservatism – the state mitigating the pain of ordinary people. Despite this bills are still 2x 2021 levels, and we still handing over taxpayer money to energy suppliers in a failed privatised model. 

Emergency measures on energy prices makes sense, but what about benefits for refitting houses with energy saving devices and expanding renewable sources? The closest we will get is Sunak’s £1.5bn green homes scheme that the National Audit Office described as ‘botched‘.  

It was just another trivial response from a government that specialises in them. Anyone remember levelling-up? 

As I written before Kwarteng and Truss diagnosed the problem, a lack of growth based on an economic and social model that is bust.  Their prescribed treatment of tax cuts and deregulation was typical of a Tory party rooted in the past.  

 

‘Kwarteng and Truss diagnosed the problem, a lack of growth based on an economic and social model that is bust’

 

Childcare is an example of this, Thatcherism was based on if you have children they are your problem, deal with it. As a result we have a nursery system that is collapsing, childcare costs an unaffordable average of just under £15,000 a year for a full-time place for a child under two. 

Nurseries are closing as they are unable to finance the government’s so-called ’30-free hours’. What the government pays to fund these hours is insufficient, meaning that pay is low and staff are leaving. Nurseries survive on charging parents significant extras. 

As a result C1.7m mothers haven’t returned to work as they cannot afford the childcare. Employers need them back, the Centre for Progressive Policy estimates that childcare failure alone costs upwards of £27bn, or 1% of GDP, says. 

In Estonia parents pay £50 a month for nurseries staffed entirely by graduates, in Australia,  Labour won the elections with ambitious childcare policies. 

Is it too much to ask that the government just gets one thing right? 

 

That the people have the power 

To redeem the work of fools 

Upon the meek the graces shower 

It’s decreed the people rule ‘ 

 

In his preamble, Philip highlights the significance of ‘Linekergate’; it certainly feels significant, with potentially no limit on how far the ripples could spread. One thing’s for sure, the ‘small boats’ saga is not going away soon, and this government’s ugly posturing over the issue will live long in the memory.

So what was Philip thinking?:

The Linaker story feels like a watershed moment. At its heart it calls into question our freedom of speech, the ability to criticise the government.

The government may not like being likened to as Nazi’s, so in order not to upset their sensibilities we will use the term fascist. What is true is that by gagging their critics they are behaving just like that.

I have long warned that we are enthral to hard-right politicians with their own twisted view of democracy. As I have long said, it isn’t where you start on this journey, it’s where you finish.  

My conclusion is this, we are now on a slippery slope, today it’s freedom of speech, next it will be banning unfriendly media, then why do we need elections? The only thing that stops a final solution is that we would never be able to get the trains to run, let alone on-time!

This week’s budget will see Hunt deliver an unimaginative Cameron / Osborne tribute act as he continues with austerity mk. whatever.

Just one more clear sign that the Tories are outdated dinosaurs, with nothing to offer other than excuses, and scapegoats as raw meat to those stupid, or nasty enough to fall for it.

Even Estonia does it better!

Lyrically, we start with Pere Ubu’s “Final Solution”. If it offends the sensitivities of a few fascists, fuck ‘em. To finish we have Patti Smith with “People Have the Power”. Only, if this mob stay’s in power that will continue not to be the case. Enjoy!

@coldwarsteve

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: