Politics

It’s the inflation, stupid: Why a ‘vibecession’ is hurting Biden – despite an economy which is the envy of Europe

Published

2 years ago

April 16, 2024

admin

In the circumstances, the numbers could hardly look much better.

A year or two ago, the conventional wisdom was that America was facing a terrific recession.

Instead, according to the latest data from the International Monetary Fund, the US has outperformed pretty much every other major economy in the world (including China).

In its latest World Economic Outlook report – the most closely-watched set of international forecasts – it upgraded the US more than nearly every other major economy.

From a European perspective, there is much to be jealous of about America’s recent performance (most European nations, including the UK, saw the IMF downgrade their growth forecasts).

Yet here’s the puzzle. Despite this comparatively strong economy, despite having seen a lower peak in inflation than most European nations (especially the UK), American consumer confidence remains in the doldrums.

It’s not just Europeans who find this perplexing. So too does the White House.

They pumped cash into the manufacturing sector at the very moment it needed it, via a series of expensive programmes including the CHIPS Act (to bring semiconductor manufacturing back home) and the Inflation Reduction Act (to encourage green technology firms to set up factories in the US).

The idea was that from the depths of the pandemic, America would “build back better” – that Biden would emulate Franklin D Roosevelt and his New Deal of the 1930s.

And most conventional statistics suggest that strategy is bearing fruit. Manufacturing employment is rising; factories are being constructed at the fastest rate in modern history. And gross domestic product – the most comprehensive measure of output – is rising. Unlike in the UK or Germany, there was no recession.

So why, then, is consumer confidence so weak? Why are Biden’s approval ratings – the key polling benchmark for the US leader – lower than pretty much any of his predecessors at this stage in their terms?

Travel around Pennsylvania, as we have done over the past few days, and you encounter all sorts of explanations.

It’s the inflation, stupid

Food banks are getting busier; and while some businesses are beginning to see that federal money trickling down, many of the programmes are still at the approval stage. The money hasn’t arrived yet.

But, above all else, you hear one recurrent answer: it’s the cost of living. It’s food prices, it’s gas prices, it’s rents.

And there’s also a big gap here between life through an economic prism and the life lived on Main Street in places like Bethlehem PA – an old steel town trying to reinvigorate its economy.

Talk to an economist and they’ll remind you that inflation – the rate at which prices are changing over the past year – is finally beginning to drop. But while this is statistically true, it misses a couple of pragmatic realities.

First, prices aren’t going down; they’re just rising a bit less quickly than they were before. The squeeze hasn’t gone away.

Second, while economists often fixate on the change in the consumer price index over the past year (3.5% in March), what the rest of the population notices is the change in prices over a longer period.

Over the past two years prices are up around 9%. Over three years, they’re up 18%.

In other words, the explanation for the “vibecesssion”, as economists have christened it (there’s no formal recession but the vibes feel bad), might actually be exceptionally simple: It’s the inflation, stupid.

In Pennsylvania, perhaps the most critical of all the swing states in the US, the question is whether Donald Trump can capitalise on this disaffection to win over the citizens who abandoned him last time around.

In the meantime, the Biden White House is biding its time, hoping that those New Deal economic textbooks they followed when pumping cash into the economy are really to be trusted.

Politics

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

Published

2 hours ago

October 22, 2025

admin

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

The grooming gangs inquiry has been plunged into disarray this week before it has even started, as four survivors have quit the panel and two frontrunners for chairperson have withdrawn.

The inquiry was announced in June, but frustrations have grown over the pace of progress towards launching it, with pressure mounting on the government to appoint a chair and set out its terms of reference.

Survivors Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds were first to stand down from their roles over concerns about who could head the inquiry and fears it may be “watered down” – something Sir Keir Starmer has denied, insisting that “injustice will have no place to hide”.

Both candidates shortlisted to lead the inquiry have now pulled out.

Here’s what we know about why panel members have quit and what the government has said in response.

Concerns over inquiry chairs

The resignations came after Sky News revealed the two shortlisted chairs for the inquiry were former police chief Jim Gamble and social worker Annie Hudson.

Ms Goddard was the first to resign from the survivors’ liaison panel, expressing deep reservations about the candidates: “One has a background in police and the other, a social worker. The very two services that contributed most to the cover-up of the national mass rape and trafficking of children.

“This is a disturbing conflict of interest, and I fear the lack of trust in services from years of failings and corruption will have a negative impact in survivor engagement with this inquiry.”

The other survivors who resigned also took issue with the shortlisted chairs in their statements.

Ms Hudson withdrew her candidacy on Tuesday, while Mr Gamble pulled out of the running on Wednesday.

In a letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood explaining his decision, Mr Gamble said it was “clear that a lack of confidence due to my previous occupation exists among some” and that he did not want to proceed without a consensus among the victims.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that candidates to chair that inquiry have withdrawn. This is an extremely sensitive topic, and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.”

Speaking to Sky News after Mr Gamble’s resignation, Ms Reynolds said: “The minute that we found out their former employment, it raised red flags.”

She claimed they represented “the very institutions that have failed us” and that their views would not have been “unbiased” or “impartial”.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Sir Keir said his government “will find the right person to chair the inquiry”, but did not mention names.

Ms Reynolds and other victims have called for a judge to chair the inquiry, but Sir Keir said he ruled that out because it would require all ongoing criminal proceedings to finish before the inquiry could begin, leading to lengthy delays.

“We’ve waited years for the truth,” Ms Reynolds said. “The timing really doesn’t matter. As long as we know that it’s going to be done properly and impartially… we would be able to wait to ensure that that’s done.”

The full statutory inquiry into how cases of child sexual exploitation have been handled across England and Wales was announced by Sir Keir after an audit by Baroness Louise Casey found children had been failed by the systems in place to protect them.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said Baroness Casey would be working in support of the inquiry.

Claims about poor treatment of survivors

Ms Reynolds said survivors were “kept in the dark” and “treated with contempt and ignored” when they asked about Home Office meetings and decisions. She said it was made clear that “speaking openly would jeopardise our place on the panel”.

She told Sky News that victims were “gaslit” and “manipulated” during the process and they had “very little faith in authorities and systems”.

Similarly, Ms Goddard claimed a “toxic, fearful environment” had been created for survivors on the panel, with “condescending and controlling language” used towards them.

Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips has said she “regrets” resignations from the inquiry and that it was “always sad when victims feel that they can’t take part in a process”.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said: “I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views, I accept that.”

He added that the door was open for people to return to the inquiry panel if they wished.

Fears of ‘diluted’ inquiry

The survivors say they fear the inquiry could be diluted, suggesting the Home Office could broaden its scope beyond group-based sexual abuse and push for it to have a regional focus rather than being truly national.

Ms Goddard said the survivors had “repeatedly faced suggestions from officials to expand this inquiry” and that it risked being “watered down”.

Ms Reynolds said the “final turning point” in her decision to quit the panel was the “push to widen the remit of the National Inquiry in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse”.

Ms Phillips said allegations that the inquiry is being diluted or intentionally delayed were “false” and that it would “remain laser-focused on grooming gangs”.

Ms Goddard claimed this amounted to the minister calling her “a liar” and said she should apologise and resign.

Ms Reynolds also said she believed Ms Phillips was “unfit for the role”.

During PMQs on Wednesday, Sir Keir defended the safeguarding minister, saying she and Baroness Casey were the “right people” to take the inquiry forward.

He insisted the inquiry “is not and will never be watered down” and that “its scope will not change”.

“It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry,” he said.

‘They should start again’

The father of a grooming gang victim says the government “should start again” with the national inquiry.

Marlon West, whose daughter Scarlett was a victim of sexual exploitation in Manchester, told Sky News that public “faith” has been “lost”.

He described Ms Phillips in parliament this week as “unprofessional” and “defensive rather than listening to what survivors are saying.”

“I doubt she will resign but she has lost any kind of faith from the public, and more importantly with survivors and families.

He wants to see an inquiry with family members included alongside survivors on the panel.

“Not that I want to go on it, if I’m honest,” he said, “but it’s the families who are dealing with the services, not so much the survivors.

“It’s really important that they get family perspective. I think they should start again.”

Government denies ‘watered down’ approach

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded to the resignations saying the scope of the inquiry “will not change” and that it will leave “no hiding place” for those involved in the scandal.

In an article for The Times, she vowed the probe “will never be watered down on my watch” – and said it will focus on how “some of the most vulnerable people in this country” were abused “at the hands of predatory monsters”.

The home secretary also insisted the inquiry will be “robust and rigorous” – with the power to compel witnesses, and examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.

Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday, Ms Goddard said the Home Secretary’s statement was “reassuring” but reiterated that Ms Phillips should resign.