Mr Brightside: The New Order 

 

“This is why events unnerve me
They find it all, a different story” 

 

The ascent of Trump endorses the inexorable rise for the new right and the extremist strongman, and cabinet appointments such as Robert F Kennedy Jr and Matt Gaetz shows how he will govern

 
Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist who promotes treatments that don’t work – such as hydroxychloroquine for Covid – who was quoted as saying; “We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years.” 

Gaetz has been under federal investigation for child sex trafficking and statutory rape, and a House of Representatives ethics committee inquiry was handily halted, thanks to his resignation just days before they were about to report. In addition to the allegations of underage sexual abuse, there were accusations that he engaged in illicit drug use, displayed to colleagues, on the floor of the House, nude photos and videos of previous sexual partners, converted campaign funds for personal use and accepted gifts banned under congressional rules. 

Despite Gaetz trying to bury the report, Republican’s, John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate judiciary committee, have demanded that it be preserved for use in Senate confirmation hearings. 
 

‘Gaetz has been under federal investigation for child sex trafficking and statutory rape’

 
Other appointments, such as Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, overseeing 18-separate intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA, or her proposed counterpart at the Pentagon, the weekend host of Fox News’s breakfast show, Pete Hegseth, are equally bizarre and frightening.   

All these appointments have one thing in common, they are all outliers, people who need a Trump to further their careers, which gives Trump what a would-be strongmen values most: loyalty. Trump knows that a character as tawdry as Gaetz, despised by his own colleagues, would owe everything to him, doing whatever Trump asks. 

Much now rides on how the Senate receives these appointment. Giving in would be no different to appeasement, each surrender begets the next. 

As I wrote at outset, the right continues to thrive as voters seek strong leaders as part of their move away from the social democracy that has been dominated the past 30-yrs .   

Hungary’s illiberal PM, Viktor Orban, was full of praise for Trump at the recent EU summit, telling delegates;  “History has accelerated. The world is going to change, and change in a quicker way than before. Obviously, it’s a great chance for Hungary to be in a close partnership and alliance with the US.” 

Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim  leader of the Freedom party, who finished first in last year’s elections and is the senior partner in the ruling coalition, also posted his congratulations, jubilantly urging Trump to “never stop, always keep fighting”. 

Italy’s PM, Giorgia Meloni, commended a “historic friendship” which “will now grow even stronger”, while Alice Weidel of Alternative for Germany (AfD) hailed a defeat for “woke Hollywood”, adding that Trump “is a model for us”. 

But this might not be a marriage made in heaven. For all their enthusiastic words, analysts and diplomats say, Europe’s mini-Trumps could well find themselves worse off.  

On the plus side, experts at the Centre for European Reform thinktank expect that “Trump will strengthen far-right parties not just by normalising and amplifying their ideas, but by boosting their electability”.  

But, whilst Europe’s far-right leaders may align comfortably with Trump in their hostility to immigration and international institutions, there are also significant differences. 
 

‘whilst Europe’s far-right leaders may align comfortably with Trump in their hostility to immigration and international institutions, there are also significant differences’

 
Meloni’s staunch support for Nato and continued international aid to Ukraine will not be greeted with enthusiasm by the more isolationist voices in the incoming US administration. 

Similarly, Orbán’s cosy “all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership” with China, which Hungary has welcomed with open arms as a key economic partner and foreign investor, is a long way from Trump’s aggressively hardline approach to Beijing. 

Trump’s promised America first trade policies could also prove complicated to negotiate for Europe’s far-right parties, who, as members of the EU’s single market, cannot respond individually to US-imposed tariffs and a likely trade war. 

“Trump’s attitude towards Europe … will be harmful to far-right parties’ core electorate – think inflation, de-industrialisation, job losses,” said Catherine Fieschi of the European University Institute. “Trump is bad news for them.” 

The idea that Trump himself “gives a damn about building relationships with these people strikes me as very very unlikely”, Fieschi added. “He will think about them on a case-by-case basis, and see whether he can extract something.” 

Interestingly, these views are at odds with the Tory and Reform leadership, who both seem to be time travellers, remembering back to when a special relationship meant something. Trump is the ultimate one-night stand, it’s transactional relationships he believes in. This begs the question, should the UK should side with the European Union over trade and economic policies rather than a Donald Trump-led US? 

The former head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Pascal Lamy, said “It’s an old question with a new relevance given Brexit and given Trump. In my view the UK is a European country. Its socio- economic model is much closer to the EU social model and not the very hard, brutal version of capitalism of Trump and [Elon] Musk. 
 

‘Trump is the ultimate one-night stand, it’s transactional relationships he believes in’

 
“In trade matters, you have to look at the numbers. The trade relationship between the UK and Europe is three times larger than between the UK and US.” 

Ivan Rogers, the former British ambassador to the EU, said it was clear that after Trump’s re-election the UK would have to choose between the US and EU. “Any free trade agreement that Trump and his team could ever propose to the UK would have to contain major proposals on US access to the UK agricultural market and on veterinary standards. It would not pass Congress without them. If the UK signed on the dotted line, that’s the end of the Starmer proposed veterinary deal with the EU. You can’t have both: you have to choose.” 

Perhaps the answer is to look eastwards? At this week’s G20 meeting, PM Starmer is expected to hold talks with President Xi of China, on whose country Trump is proposing to slap huge 60% import tariffs. Trade experts expect that the US will demand that the EU and UK follow suit, which both will strongly resist for their own trade reasons. 

The UK is seeking to increase trade with Beijing while also stepping up efforts to find greater ways to access the EU single market. Last week, the governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, made clear that leaving the EU had “weighed” on the domestic economy. 

Trade drives growth, and that is part of the equation the government must wrestle with if we are to overcome inequality and poverty.  
 

‘Andrew Bailey made clear that leaving the EU had “weighed” on the domestic economy’

 
Other parts of the sum are more implicit, E.G., improving health. Low-to-middle incomes are more than 5-times more likely than richer people to be out of work because of ill health. Which is why the budget’s extra money for the NHS, whilst less tangible, is equally import in the drive for growth. 

Contra the what the Daily Mail might think, poorer Britain is working. Overall, employment among low-to-middle income families is up nine percentage points since the mid-90s. There has been no rise among richer households. And, the share of poorer families in which no one is working has fallen from 24% to 13% since Tony Blair came to power. Today, we need to improve the pay, security and volatility of people’s work. 

Whilst more low-to-middle income families’ are working, their incomes are being squeezed. Half of their  spending went on essentials (like food and housing) in 2000, today essentials account for 70%. 

Many of these will also not benefit from the great transfer of wealth, whereas those born to the wealthiest baby boomers are more than twice as likely to receive inheritances from their parents, which further exacerbating inequalities. 

New research from the Resolution Foundation, shows that Britain’s wealth boom has been fuelled by house prices in recent decades. The value of UK household wealth soared from 3x the size of the economy in the mid-1980s to 7x its size on the eve of the pandemic.  
 

‘Whilst more low-to-middle income families’ are working, their incomes are being squeezed’

 
By 2023, people in their late 60s were £115,000 wealthier than those of the same age in 2006-08. The overwhelming majority of them expect to hand down their wealth to their children. Eighty percent of adults over 50 currently expect to leave an inheritance. 

The number of people receiving large financial gifts of more than £10,000 over a two-year period has more than doubled in the past decade. 

This massive transfer of funds plays a major role in helping younger workers on to the housing ladder. More than a third of recent first-time buyers had used gifts from family or friends to help them.  

The study finds 94% of the wealthiest 20% of households expect to leave a bequest, compared with just 44% in the bottom fifth. As a result, home ownership is taking on an increasingly hereditary quality. Some 92% of outright owners expect to leave a bequest, compared with 45% of renters. 

Molly Broome, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “With the value of inheritances looking on track to potentially double over the next 20 years, this could represent a significant generational transfer of wealth. These wealth transfers risk entrenching existing inequalities, as individuals without wealthy home-owning parents miss out on a double advantage.” 

If Americans voted Trump on the assumption that his populist policies will bring about redistribution, they will be disappointed. For preening populist strongmen leaders, lies and the ostracism of their tool-in-trade. 
 

‘an oligarchic system that enriches a few cannot deliver economic security to the masses’

 
The pretence of meeting the needs of the masses delivered Trump’s victory. He understands that an oligarchic system that enriches a few cannot deliver economic security to the masses. If you want the majority of the public on your side, you have to promise change, but not in a way that actually reconfigures society. 

However, the last 40-yrs of globalisation and free market capitalism, also have not delivered on their promise of bringing us all closer together, instead these policies have created inequality, winners and losers. The standardisation that globalisation produced has seen our economies flooded by goods, services, apps and digital entertainment,  yet we still feel the need for a sense of security beyond just our ability to consume in the immediate term. 

The socially liberal free market model that progressives believe in has seized up. In some ways it was a nihilistic situation, where a lack of regulation, redistributive policies and low taxes driving spending cuts meant there was no safety net when traditional social arrangements were shattered. Globalisation saw whole communities in the west suffer from deindustrialisation, while a poorly paid urban working class was created in the global south.  
 

‘Starmer needs to understand, voters don’t have to get ready for him, he has to get ready for them’

 
The GFC concentrated wealth in the hands of rentiers, leaving the young unable to enjoy the life their parents had. In the 2010s, with the rise of Silicon Valley tech companies, drivers, riders and box packers were plunged into poorly protected and poorly paid work. 

It is easier for many to blame racism for Trump’s victory, but the reality is that the old order is gone and the new one is bewildering. People feel trapped and want a sense of release, a promise of a dramatically different future, or just a future. They don’t care if that sense of freedom comes from an autocrat who has effectively broken the old system. They want to feel part of something bigger and stronger. This is what leaders such as PM Starmer needs to understand, voters don’t have to get ready for him, he has to get ready for them. 
 

“’Cause I’m stranded on my own
Stranded far from home” 

 

‘The more I reflect on Trump’s victory the more it seems that he isn’t the new kid in town but the vanguard of a new order.

He personifies the strong man leader syndrome, at times his posturing reminds me of Mussolini.

Everything is based around nationalism and nativism. It is America first, and within this he favours the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including in this are anti-immigration measures.  

This isn’t new and anyone can do it. But, there is one major difference. This is America, the richest, most powerful nation on earth, supported by an economy more dynamic and resilient than anyone else’s.

Trump is pulling-up the drawbridge, America will no longer be the world’s policeman, and will no longer subsidise other countries’ defences.

The UK and Europe have grown fat and complacent. Being able to cut taxes and fund grandiose pensions because they didn’t have to pay the true costs of defence.

Trade wise the US is more self-sustaining than most. Yes, they might still have a penchant for German cars and European designer goods, but that is the domain of the top-5% who stand to make more out of a Trump presidency than the tariffs these luxuries will attract.

If we isolate the UK, we are just that; isolated. Trade relationship between the UK and Europe is three times larger than between the UK and US, yet we still cling onto the special relationship. Our pound-shop Trump’s, Badenoch and Farage are still anti-Europe, and the bad blood caused by Johnson and his less than amicable divorce from Europe will take years to heal.

Trump’s policies are unlikely to lead to any major redistribution in wealth, but he may yet make workers better off. The problem will be that any increase in wages could be offset by higher inflation driven by his implementation of tariffs.

This is an experiment the UK could never undertake, we are too poor, lacking in dynamism, and fundamentally insignificant. For Starmer redistribution to overcome inequality and taking people out of poverty is our new order.

He needs to think in the whole. Yes, a budget raining NHS spending does tackle inequality, but then monitoring the use of the new funds with league tables designed to reward the best performers defeats the entire point. The funds need to be used to improve the worst performers if we are to create health inequality. his diagnosis is correct but the recommended treatment is wrong.

Another noticeable difference between the UK and US, between Trump and Starmer is attitude, they are can-do, positive, we are all self-recriminations and can’t afford it. Starmer needs to cheer-up, if he thinks it‘s all gone to shit what does that mean for the rest of us?

Lyrically, we start with New Order and “Ceremony”, the song that marked the end of Joy Division and the beginning of New Order. As the song says, events are unnerving but you have to make the best of them.

We finish with The Saints, ” and “

”, dedicated to a Britain that stranded itself in 2016.

Enjoy!

Philip.’

 

@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: