If Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 General Election reads more like a strategic plan for Britain than a political sales brochure, that’s because it is. Labour has used its poll lead well to resist the temptation to pack its manifesto with gimmicks and giveaways, instead setting out a serious programme for the country.
The goal of the programme is achieving Labour’s five national missions; the means to get there is stronger economic growth. The first chapter is devoted to wealth creation, and sets out a distinct departure from the economic philosophy we have been used to under the Conservatives.
Gone is the failed old orthodoxy of leaving the vital task of generating widespread prosperity to the market. In comes the new centrism of a dynamic and strategic state that partners with the private sector to drive stronger, more sustainable economic growth across the country.
Just because there were no big policy surprises on the day the manifesto was launched, does not mean there are no big policies. In fact the manifesto is packed full of major structural reforms to the UK economy.
This is the second of PPI’s weekly bulletin charting the course of the UK General Election, from PPI’s Claire Ainsley.
Claire is based in the UK, directing PPI’s project on center-left renewal, and is former director of policy to Labour leader Keir Starmer. She is supporting the Labour campaign, as a media commentator, as well as on the ground ahead of polling day on Thursday 4th July.
The UK is now in the astonishing position that the governing political party is now polling third – or close to it – in a two-party system. Such is the Conservatives’ unpopularity amongst the electorate at large, and the threat from new party Reform UK so great, that the dominant political party in British politics is facing a real crisis.
However there are still three weeks to go until polling day, and not a vote has been cast, as Labour leader Keir Starmer and his Shadow Cabinet have been at pains to point out. We know from recent elections how much more volatile the electorate is, with tribal loyalties weakened, so we just cannot be certain of the outcome. There is no complacency in the ground operation of the Labour party, which is fighting for a large number of battleground seats across England, Wales and Scotland before voters go to the polls on 4th July.
This week saw the publication of the party manifestos, with more pressure on the Conservatives to produce a game-changing offer given the state of the race. Despite eye-catching promises of tax cuts, the manifesto doesn’t appear to be shifting the dial in their direction. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has had days of negative coverage after he left the D-Day commemorations early to return to the UK for an election interview, a decision widely condemned and one he later apologised for. Labour played it safe with their “no surprises” manifesto, essentially re-announcing much of the programme for government they have already set out, which I have written about more extensively for Labour List here [add link when live]. The manifesto is light years away from the high spending promises of the Corbyn years, but is clearly inspired by the ambition of the Biden administration to harness the dynamic power of the state to fuel private enterprise.
Gratifyingly for PPI, Labour leader Keir Starmer placed remaking the deal whereby if you work hard you can get on, at the centre of the manifesto, which we argued for in our publication ‘Roadmap to Hope’ last year.
In the end much of the political debate is coming down to the parlous state of the UK’s public finances. Independent experts the Institute for Fiscal Studies have taken a sceptical view of all the parties’ plans, saying they do not adequately cover public funding commitments without tax hikes or further cuts to services. With another three weeks to go, we should expect the parties to come under intense pressure to demonstrate how they can deliver on their promises without leaning into one or the other.
Washington, D.C. — Roughly 20% of federal investment in postsecondary education supports workforce development for fields like construction, manufacturing, and more, according to a new report on federal workforce funding levels released today. The report, Building a Stronger Workforce: Federal Spending on Postsecondary Education and Training, produced by the Progressive Policy Institute, the Associated General Contractors of America, and Procore, notes that of the $139.5 billion the federal government spends annually on postsecondary education, only $28.2 billion goes to workforce education and training programs. The other $111.3 billion supports “traditional” degree programs that only 38% of Americans complete — creating a funding gap that is making it difficult for many employers to find qualified talent.
Included in the report are recommendations on how federal and state policymakers can address this discrepancy and better support employers in addressing workforce shortages in high-demand industries. Recommendations include increasing federal investments in workforce development, investing in “what works,” ensuring employers are in the driver’s seat of talent development efforts, and encouraging stronger employer-centered partnerships. The report also highlights promising state programs that provide direct resources for employer-led education and training.
The groups released this report during a bipartisan event earlier today on Capitol Hill that featured remarks from the office of Representative Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the report’s authors, and an employer and training provider, who discussed the challenges posed by the current federal funding levels and urged policymakers to help.
“The wide disparity in federal funding between career and technical education programs and traditional degree-granting higher education programs needs to be rebalanced to ensure the next generation of American workers are prepared to excel in family-sustaining and rewarding careers. I thank AGC and PPI for adding their voices to the much-needed conversation about how the federal government prioritizes education funding. There are many great educational pathways, and it is time for policymakers to recognize this and take action to support students’ success outside of the traditional classroom,” said Rep. Lloyd Smucker.
“We need bipartisan solutions to ensure current and future workers are well-prepared for in-demand employment opportunities,” said Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.). “I am pleased to see that PPI and AGC are working to address this challenge by examining the discrepancy between federal funding levels of workforce development and traditional academic programs. Our investments in education and workforce development at the federal level must be strategically aligned to unlock the full economic potential for hardworking people in eastern North Carolina and beyond.”
Read and download the report by PPI authors Taylor Maag and Tamar Jacobyhere.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading association for the construction industry. AGC represents more than 27,000 firms, including over 6,500 of America’s leading general contractors, and over 9,000 specialty-contracting firms. More than 10,500 service providers and suppliers are also associated with AGC, all through a nationwide network of chapters.
###
Media Contact:Brian Turmail, Associated General Contractors of America, brian.turmail@agc.org
America’s labor market presents a paradox. Although the unemployment rate is just 3.9%, there are more jobs open than people who can fill them. Nationwide, there are roughly 68 workers for every 100 open jobs. Many factors contribute to this workforce shortage, but one of the most significant is a growing skills gap — millions of workers across the economy are unprepared for in-demand employment opportunities.
In construction and other industries, employers are hurting, desperate for talent, and looking for innovative ways to attract people to open positions. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the construction industry currently has 407,000 job openings. This shortage is expected to grow, with a projected need for 723,000 workers annually due to economic expansion, worker retirements, and the changing skill needs driven by energy transitions and technological advancements. Some 88% of construction firms report having a hard time finding workers to hire.
To address this challenge, employers in construction and other industries are investing in workforce development — working to ensure current and future workers have the skills needed to succeed in high-demand careers. But employers can’t do it alone. And although federal funding is available to support skill development, it is not nearly enough. Just $28.2 billion out of a total $139.5 billion allocated annually for postsecondary education and training is spent on workforce development.
This policy brief estimates current federal spending on postsecondary workforce education and training and compares these funding levels to funding for traditional academic programs. This brief explores how investment in workforce education today compares to in investment in recent decades. Finally, it offers examples of how four states are investing in workforce education and offers policy recommendations for stakeholders and policymakers to consider for the future.
FACT: Japanese firms are the top international investors in the United States.
THE NUMBERS: Japanese population –
Children and teenagers (0-19 years):
19.5 million
70 years and older:
21.2 million
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Speaking to Congress in Joint Session last April, Prime Minister Kishida radiates confidence in the U.S.-Japan alliance and takes some pride in the Japanese place in American economic life:
“We are on deck, we are on task. And we are ready to do what is necessary. The democratic nations of the world must have all hands on deck. I am here to say that Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. You are not alone. We are with you.” … “Japanese companies have invested around 800 billion dollars, creating almost one million American jobs. These are good jobs with half a million jobs in the manufacturing sector alone.”
Newly-minted PPI Senior Fellow and veteran economic journalist Yuka Hayashi picks up on his themes — alliance, partnership, Japanese industry’s American commitments — in PPI’s newest global-economy research paper “Behind Japan’s U.S. Steel Bid: An Aging, Shrinking Home Market,” through the lens of Nippon Steel’s proposed purchase of venerable Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel.
To start there: Nippon Steel, the world’s fourth-largest steel producer at 43.7 million tons last year, has been a U.S. metal producer since 1984 and is currently the 50% operator of Alabama’s 5-million-ton capacity Calvert steel mill. Its 2023 bid for U.S. Steel, though approved by U.S. Steel’s Board and shareholders, has sparked some U.S. controversy and “economic nationalist” rhetoric. PPI’s Ed Gresser and Diana Moss have examined this through the lens of U.S. foreign direct investment policy and anti-trust law; Hayashi picks up the Japanese side of the story, with a picture of Japanese industrial and manufacturing excellence set against an aging population and in some ways shrinking domestic economy, and a consequent search by leading Japanese firms for options beyond the home islands.
Examined from the U.S. angle, science and industrial data add exclamation points to the PM’s point about the large role of Japanese industry in the U.S. economy. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for example, granted 48,051 U.S. patents to residents of Japan in 2022 (the last year available), which was an eighth of all the 385,433 U.S. patents awarded in total and far beyond PTO’s grants to residents of any country apart from the United States itself. Japan-based businesses, meanwhile, have a “foreign direct investment” stock of $775 billion in the U.S. – a seventh of the $5.25 trillion world total, and more than any other country in the world. (Canada is second at $684 billion and the UK third at $661 billion.) The Japanese firms employ 1.04 million American workers, paying $107.6 billion in wages and salaries — about $103,000 a year on average — and put $13 billion into U.S. research and development. And Kishida’s half a million U.S. manufacturing jobs slightly lowballs the precise figure: the Commerce Department reports 544,000 of the U.S.’ 13 million manufacturing workers at work for Japan-based firms.
Hayashi’s paper, meanwhile, illuminates the Japanese side of the story: some of the impressive investment figures reflect Japanese businesses’ response to profound demographic and economic challenges at home. Japan’s population has fallen from a 2007 peak of 127.7 million people to 124.1 million and is dropping by over 600,000 per year. The country’s 21.2 million 70-and-olders now outnumber the 19.5 million Japanese children and teenagers. This means fewer workers each year, a smaller consumer base, and lower future growth prospects. The result, she explains, is that with Japan’s home economy slowly contracting, Japanese industry seeks growth by producing and selling abroad:
“Combined with sluggish wage growth in recent decades, demand for everything from housing, cars to snack food has been shrinking in Japan. The downturn is likely to intensify. That has pushed Japanese companies, big and small, to expand abroad if they can compete. Overall, Japanese manufacturers are projected to earn 39% of their revenues outside of Japan during fiscal 2023, up from 29% two decades ago, according to a survey of 534 companies by Japan Bank for International Cooperation, a government lender. The companies planned to manufacture 36% of their products outside of Japan, compared with 26% in fiscal 2003.”
Auto star Toyota, for example, sells 1.7 million of its cars at home and 8.6 million elsewhere; therefore, it now makes only 3 million of its 10 million vehicles in Japan itself, while producing another 3 million in China, the United States, and Thailand, and three million more in factories spread across Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Nippon Steel is making similar choices. With Japan’s own steel use down from a 99 million-ton peak in 1990 to 58 million tons in 2023, Nippon Steel is closing five furnaces in Japan; meanwhile, since 2019 it has launched a massive joint venture with Euro-Indian firm ArcelorMittal in India, and bought facilities in Sweden, Thailand, and Brazil. Hence its high interest in an American partner. Hayashi concludes that the idea makes sense for both countries:
“Nippon’s emergence as a bidder for a prominent American manufacturer is an inevitable outcome of a changing economic landscape. In the past, Japanese companies came to the U.S. to build factories to escape the impact of trade friction and currency appreciation. Now they are doubling down because there is no longer enough demand at home to support their growth. The U.S. is where they see opportunities. All of this will yield significant benefits for the American economy and workers should the U.S. welcome foreign investment by friendly nations like Japan.
…
“The beneficiaries, in particular, will be American workers without college degrees, who tend to reap greater rewards from good manufacturing jobs. Increased FDI will also mean more of the funding and innovative know-how the U.S. will need to improve productivity, reduce reliance on imports and withstand competition from China. That’s particularly true for the steel industry where companies have struggled with Chinese overcapacity even as they face enormous pressures and funding requirements to shift to greener technologies. The Biden administration’s own “friend-shoring” strategy calls for closer ties and cooperation with allies and like-minded countries. The goal is to strengthen supply chains for critical products in order to strengthen national security and respond to future emergencies. It is difficult to see the wisdom of any response to Nippon Steel’s bid short of embracing the vote of confidence in our marketplace that the Japanese company’s proposed transaction represents.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s most recent patent data.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ annual look at international business investment in the U.S. has figures by country and industry, and topics from employment and wages to exports, imports, and R&D. A quick table of current FDI stock value (2022, the most recent year available) for the world, top five, and all others combined:
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
When Japan’s industrial titan Nippon Steel sought to acquire U.S. Steel late last year, it set off a chorus of American opposition.
Union leaders and lawmakers railed against the deal in language reminiscent of the U.S.-Japan trade wars of the 1980s and 1990s. President Biden — nodding to swing state votes in steel country — said U.S. Steel must remain “domestically owned and operated.”
Leave aside the election year politics — and how it tests the ability of an American company to pursue what it sees as the most logical strategy for itself. The bid reflects Japan’s rise to the largest foreign investor in American businesses. And this investment surge is unlike those of years past when Tokyo’s overseas expansion was part of its rising economic clout. Today, the opposite is true.
Japan’s relentless population decline is causing its market to shrink. So Japanese companies are turning to the U.S. for growth, thereby setting a precedent for other foreign companies facing similar demographic challenges in their home markets.
It is a precedent Washington policymakers would do well to note. The Nippon Steel bid illustrates how, in the coming years, more foreign companies with declining populations are going to seek to invest in the U.S.
This is a trend the U.S. should welcome and seek to leverage while making sure investments come from trusted allies, not from strategic rivals, including China, to avoid leakage of technology.
Foreign investments — particularly those in manufacturing — create both jobs and fresh opportunities for local businesses. Rural areas such as midwestern factory towns will be beneficiaries.
Allied investments bring capital and innovation that allow the U.S. to better compete against China. The Biden administration, through “friendshoring,” is already working with allies and likeminded nations to strengthen and secure supply chains for critical products. That strategy should include embracing U.S.-bound investments from those same close allies, starting with Japan.
Big beneficiaries of this approach will be American workers, especially those without college degrees, who tend to gain from good manufacturing jobs.
Washington, D.C. — Faced with a rapidly shrinking and aging population at home, Japanese companies have been sharply increasing investments in the U.S., the world’s largest and growing consumer market. Despite Japan’s economic struggles in recent decades, the country became the number one investor in U.S. businesses in 2019, and the trend is expected to continue. Other nations in Asia and Europe with similar demographic challenges are likely to follow its lead, bringing opportunities for new jobs and economic growth to American communities.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a report titled “Behind Japan’s U.S. Steel Bid: An Aging, Shrinking Home Market,” which provides a fresh perspective on the Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel merger by closely examining Japan’s economic realities behind Nippon Steel’s pursuit of the American industrial icon. While Japan is just one example of an allied country struggling with domestic economic growth, other friendly allied countries are looking to the U.S. as an attractive investment destination.
“The population’s shrinking and aging has been pushing Japanese businesses to invest in the U.S. to chase growth, and those from other countries facing similar challenges will surely follow,” said report author Yuka Hayashi. “The U.S. has to decide whether to embrace this exceptionally fortunate position as the world’s prime investment destination or turn inward and spurn opportunities to grow.”
As competition with China escalates, the report emphasizes the importance of the longstanding U.S.-Japan relationship and makes the case for the joint benefits of the merger for both Japan and the United States. Allied countries like Japan are rushing to take advantage of tax credits and subsidies provided by the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, and the report argues the U.S. should welcome the influx of friendly foreign investment with open arms, while making sure critical technology doesn’t fall into the hands of adversarial nations.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
Public school teachers are stressed out by their work. They have a gloomy outlook on the problems students face and a dim view of K-12 education’s future. These and other bleak views are chronicled in a new Pew Research Center survey of classroom teachers entitled What’s It Like To Be a Teacher in America Today?
Truth be told, teachers are just as prone as the rest of us to overstate how bad things are. Moreover, this survey is a snapshot of one point in time.
But it is important to understand teachers’ perceptions of K-12 education following Covid-19. This means listening to their voices and their unflattering reflections, as challenging as they are.
Washington, D.C. — Congress is in the process of reauthorizing and expanding the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act which provides the United States a plan for advancing quantum research and technological development. This bill, and others being considered by Congress, gives the United States government the ability to play an important role in supporting near-term quantum technologies that have the power to revolutionize private and public sector real-world challenges, such as electrical grid resilience, port optimization, and global supply chain management.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute’s (PPI) Innovation Frontier Project (IFP) released a new report titled “U.S. Quantum Technology Leadership Hinges on Federal Policy in the 118th Congress,” which lays out the state of today’s quantum industry and identifies policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the NQI and related legislation. Report author Allison Schwartz, Vice President of Global Government Relations and Public Affairs at D-Wave explains the passage of these important bills will help close the gap that has emerged between the pace of quantum technological innovation and the domestic policies that guide the quantum industry.
“If the United States wants to remain a global leader in quantum technology, Congress must swiftly expand and pass the reauthorization of the National Quantum Initiative Act,” said Allison Schwartz, author of the report. “Doing so will help solve some of our nation’s most pressing public sector issues and put the U.S. in line with other leading nations who are investing in long-term quantum technology.”
The report makes the following policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act and related legislation:
Boosting investment in long-term hardware advancements to keep up with other countries.
Ensuring that the NQI inclusively incorporates the full range of near-term and long-term technologies, including quantum annealing, gate-model, and quantum-classical hybrid technologies.
Supporting the development and deployment of near-term use cases through new quantum sandbox programs.
Enhancing access to commercial quantum systems by funding the quantum user access program (QUEST) authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act.
Building an integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing data-center domestic infrastructure.
Supporting domestic component and chip fabrication in addition to commercial-scale rapid prototyping research and development.
Enhancing international quantum cooperation agreements to include commercialization, talent development, and supply chains as well as academic research.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
Quantum computing, a technology that uses quantum mechanics to perform computation at speeds greater than today’s “classical” computers, has the power to revolutionize private and public sector problem-solving. Pressing real-world challenges such as electrical grid resilience, port optimization, global supply-chain management, emergency management and response, infrastructure development, sustainability, and the security of telecommunication networks can all be addressed by quantum applications.
This policy report examines the current state of the quantum industry, including rapid advancements that have occurred over the past five years. Two quantum computing “modalities” will be distinguished: annealing, which is being used to solve optimization problems today, and gate-model, where the applications are mostly further off in the future. Most problems will
continue to need classical computations for parts of those problems, therefore, quantum-classical hybrid applications — where quantum computing technologies work synergistically with classical computers — are being developed to solve challenging problems.
From the policy perspective, understanding the different quantum computing technologies is important because Congress is in the process of reauthorizing and expanding the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act which expired on September 30, 2023. In addition, a variety of other quantum-related initiatives are being considered by Congress.
Up to now, the federal government has mostly focused on supporting longer-term basic research in quantum technology, which is important for long-term competitiveness. But the government also has an important role to play in supporting near-term quantum technologies such as annealing.
This paper offers policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the NQI and related legislation, including:
• Boosting investment in long-term hardware advancements to keep up with other countries.
• Ensuring that the NQI addresses the full range of near-term and long-term technologies, including regularly conducting technology readiness-level (TRL) assessments.
• Supporting the development and deployment of near-term use cases through new quantum sandbox programs.
• Enhancing access to commercial quantum systems by funding the quantum user access program (QUEST) authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act.
• Building an integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing data-center domestic infrastructure.
• Supporting domestic component and chip fabrication in addition to commercial-scale rapid prototyping research and development.
• Enhancing international quantum cooperation agreements to include commercialization, talent development, and supply chains as well as academic research.
In addition, the NQI and related legislation must support the development of a skilled workforce that can support the growing U.S. quantum industry, and the end users of the technology both in the private and public sectors. That means funding talent programs that permit students to access the variety of quantum computing training courses created by industry, and supporting academic programs that attract and retain talent from diverse and underserved populations.
As donors and investors gather this week in Berlin for the Ukraine Recovery Conference, all eyes are on helping the besieged nation. In Mykolaiv, near the Black Sea, the Danish government assists by jump-starting local businesses, fighting corruption—and helping Ukraine shake off its Soviet economic legacy.
The damage is evident everywhere in Mykolaiv, once a bustling port and shipbuilding hub near the Black Sea, 85 miles east of Odesa. Russian and Ukrainian forces fought hand to hand in and around the city in March 2022, followed by eight months of relentless shelling by the frustrated invading army. In November, Ukrainian troops pushed the Russians out of range, and the invaders never made it to Odesa.
More than two years later, many of the windows in the working-class city are still covered with plywood. Parking lots are pocked with shell craters. There’s a gaping eight-story hole at the center of the empty regional administration building—a reminder of the missiles meant to assassinate popular Governor Vitalii Kim that killed 37 civil servants in late March 2022.
The city’s economic engine—the port—is idle. Russians still control the mouth of the channel that connects Mykolaiv to the Black Sea, and no cargo has come or gone since February 2022. The nearly 300-year-old town teems with displaced persons from southern Ukraine, but a quarter of the city’s prewar population of 480,000 has yet to return.
Welcome to the first of PPI’s weekly bulletin charting the course of the UK General Election, from PPI’s Claire Ainsley.
Claire is based in the UK, directing PPI’s project on center-left renewal, and is former director of policy to Labour leader Keir Starmer. She is supporting the Labour campaign, as a media commentator, as well as on the ground ahead of polling day on Thursday 4th July.
The UK is now just four weeks away from what is promising to be the most important election in more than a decade. Incumbent Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took everyone by surprise – including whoever holds the PM’s umbrella, it seems – by making a rain-soaked announcement on the steps of Downing Street that he was calling a General Election months earlier than anyone expected.
With the Conservatives entering the race 20 points behind in the opinion polls, and a large 80-seat majority to defend, it wasn’t immediately obvious why go now. A clue can be found in PPI’s recent research on working-class voters, covered here in the UK Guardian, showing that the Conservatives are under increasing pressure from Reform UK, a new political party that is mobilising voters primarily concerned about immigration. Our poll showed Reform has doubled their support amongst working-class voters between September 2023 and May 2024. The English Channel boat crossings are likely to rise over the summer months, and combined with an economy that voters don’t believe has turned a corner, perhaps Sunak thought things could get worse later in the year.
If anything, things have gotten worse for Sunak, and sooner than he might have expected. The polls have showed little sign of budging in his direction, despite some internal Labour politics clouding an otherwise assured start from the opposition. And on Monday, Nigel Farage decided to abandon his role as a Trump campaign champion, and enter the UK race as the newly-installed leader of Reform UK. Within days, opinion polls are showing that Reform is eating into the Conservative vote in particular. But so too are Reform having an effect on Labour too, with polls showing a dip for both the main parties.
What is underlying all of this is the dissatisfaction voters feel about how ineffective the Conservative government has been at tackling the challenges they face on the issues that matter most to them. This poll from PPI featured in the Mirror shows that working-class voters, a crucial electoral base for the center-left, think the Conservatives are failing them on the economy, the NHS, and on immigration.
So far, we haven’t seen much of a debate about the substance of the programmes and policies that the parties propose to remedy the country’s ills. But with another four weeks to go, and manifestos published in the next fortnight, expect to see a greater competition on policy and more heat on all the parties to convince voters they have the answers they’re looking for.
U.S. allies will converge in Washington next month for this year’s NATO summit, which also marks the 75th anniversary of the most successful collective security pact in modern times.
Amid the prosaic business of managing a 32-nation alliance, one urgent question will hover over the gathering: Are the transatlantic partners doing enough to prevent Russia from snuffing out Ukraine’s sovereignty?
If they fail, it won’t just be a tragedy for Ukraine. Its defeat or dismemberment would reward Vladimir Putin’s aggression and whet his appetite for regaining control over other former Soviet possessions, such as Armenia, Moldova and the Baltic states.
Last week, Senator Roger Wicker, the GOP ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for increasing U.S. defense spending from roughly 3% to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next five to seven years to prepare for increased geopolitical tensions with Russia, China, and Iran. That would require at least $5 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade, for which Senator Wicker offers no offsets.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans also want to spend an additional $4 trillion over the next decade to extend the Trump 2017 tax cuts, most of which are currently set to expire in 2026. Even if there were national security merits to Senator Wicker’s proposal, Republicans have offered the country no explanation for how they intend to finance $9 trillion in spending, which would reverse the $1.5 trillion of savings they secured in last year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act several times over. By comparison, the most recent Biden budget proposed $4.1 trillion in new spending over the next decade, and much of that was offset by proposed tax increases.
Wicker’s plans for a dramatic ramp-up of defense spending were swiftly endorsed by Mitch McConnell and several other prominent Republicans. However, the proposal does not spell out a clear strategic rationale for such a high defense target. In an op-ed defending the proposal, Wicker cites the unfunded priorities lists annually requested by the Pentagon as one justification for this increase. However, the spending increase that would be required to fully fund all these priorities is less than one-tenth of what Wicker is calling for. Moreover, there is clearly some room for the Pentagon to pay for these priorities by spending smarter rather than spending more. The Inspector General’s Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Defense Business Board have all suggested that smarter procurement and personnel decisions could save money with few negative consequences for military readiness.
But if our country faces threats dire enough to justify this new spending, you’d expect a party that has repeatedly threatened to crash the economy in the name of “fiscal discipline” to come up with ways to pay for it. Yet Republicans have instead chosen to do the opposite, calling for even more tax cuts for affluent Americans by making their 2017 tax bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), permanent. Although TCJA made some positive changes to simplify the individual tax code that are worth extending, it also lavished almost two-thirds of the overall benefits on the top fifth of income earners. And contrary to GOP claims that the law would pay for itself, even sympathetic estimates say only about 14% of the total cost is estimated to be recouped through faster economic growth.
America cannot afford the GOP’s reckless spending proposals. The federal government spent $2 trillion more than it raised in revenue last year — a deficit that cannot be justified at a time of strong economic growth and record-low unemployment rates. Interest costs as a percent of GDP are now higher than at any other point in American history, and they are projected to more than double over the next 30 years even if current law remains unchanged. If this growth continues unchecked, interest costs will begin to crowd out other important priorities, including national defense. This scenario is hardly hypothetical, as interest payments on the debt eclipsed defense spending for the first time last year. If the GOP truly wanted to ensure military readiness, they would ensure that defense spending is sustainable rather than pitch unrealistic spending surges.
Ultimately, these GOP proposals highlight how unserious their party is on improving the nation’s fiscal outlook. Despite their routine demonization of fiscal proposals from the other side of the aisle, they fail to recognize the complete incompatibility and hypocrisy of their own $9 trillion priorities. Republicans want to spend now and pay later — by sticking young Americans with the bill. Policymakers in Congress and the Administration should be having a serious dialogue about what is necessary to correct the nation’s fiscal trajectory, not making it worse.
Washington, D.C. — Climate change, coupled with flawed historical forestry practices, has exacerbated the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the United States. Due to a shortage of dedicated firefighting resources, military units — including active-duty forces — are deployed to suppress wildland fires ever more often. Meanwhile, the U.S. armed forces’ extensive foreign commitments show no indication of abating, especially considering China’s burgeoning military strength and Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report titled, “Redefining the Military’s Role in Wildfire Suppression,” which makes the case for increased investments in civilian firefighting resources and new modern forestry and fire reduction techniques in an effort to reduce reliance on the U.S. military. While military forces have served an indispensable role in U.S. fire suppression, creating new fire management plans and reinforcing nonmilitary firefighting assets will help bolster the nation’s ability to respond to intensifying wildfires while leaving the armed forces with leeway to address their primary commitments.
“The increasing demand for the military to engage in wildfire suppression threatens to undermine global force posture in a climate of growing instability and multipolarity,” said Alec Evans, Energy Policy Fellow at PPI. “It is critical for the U.S. to enhance its dedicated wildland firefighting resources in order to safeguard its military strength, especially as U.S. wildfires continue to intensify and the prospect of great power competition returns to prominence.”
The report evaluates the military’s role in wildfire suppression and examines the legal and command framework behind military wildland firefighting assignments, offering policy recommendations to prepare the U.S. military and civilian agencies for the growth of future fire seasons. As climate change increases the threat posed by wildfires and the armed forces become further engaged in great power competition, the United States must implement proactive reforms now to prevent greater future climate catastrophes.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
Wildfires are becoming more widespread, frequent, and destructive due to climate change and historical malpractices in forest management. As civil agencies become overwhelmed, U.S. firefighting efforts have become more dependent on military resources. Between 2017 and 2021, the National Guard’s man-hours spent fighting wildfires grew more than tenfold; wildfire costs ballooned to almost $82 billion over the same period.
The armed forces field unique capabilities that can benefit firefighting efforts, particularly the ability to rapidly deploy large forces to remote locations. However, overrelying on the military to combat wildfires could impair its capacity to ensure U.S. national security. If the current model of double-tasking military units persists, the country would be unable to mount an adequate response if faced with both a high-intensity conflict and a severe wildfire season. Therefore, given the armed forces’ increasing commitments abroad and the expanding threat of wildfires to the homeland, other government agencies and private contractors should shoulder the growing burden of fire suppression and implement more efficient fire practices so that military units can remain dedicated to their core missions.
