#1 HopeWorks: A Progressive Reader
On progressive Christianity, the virtue of fiscal prudence, and how to fight inequality
Welcome to the first edition of HopeWorks: A Progressive Reader. We will be highlighting works that foster progressive ideas and debates on the future of politics. First up…
Trump v. Pope Leo
Writing in The Guardian, Bill McKibben describes how Pope Leo is fighting for the progressive cause:
Which brings us to the pope, the American pope, who has taken on Maga’s regressive form of Christianity more memorably and powerfully than any religious leader in recent history. Leo grew up in this country in precisely that period when the church was transitioning, post-Vatican II, to a more liberal tone. He left America before the church fathers turned rightward with their grim obsession with a woman’s right to choose. He was overseas while that was going on, mostly in Peru, ministering to the poor. In some ways, his seems like a 1960s or 70s Christianity, preserved by circumstance. And he speaks midwestern American English, easy for everyone to understand, hard for anyone to undercut.
The beef between Leo and Trump started to come into focus as the immigration debate heated up: among other things, he was roused by reports that ICE was denying communion to immigrants in detention. America’s new war on the marginalized was, he said, “extremely disrespectful”. But his unease clearly grew with the onset of the war – and in particular with Trump and Hegseth’s insistence that it was a holy war, fought in the name of Jesus, and blessed by God. On Easter weekend, when the president declared his intention to wipe out an entire civilization unless he got his way, the pope had had enough. He said the president’s words were “unacceptable”, a stern message that actually lands far stronger than the profanity that has become the lingua franca of the political class in recent years.
The progressive case for green energy and fiscal prudence
Speaking at the first UCL Policy Lab Annual Lecture in Economic Policy, Torsten Bell MP argued the Iran crisis has vindicated the government’s commitment to clean energy. In keeping with his former role as chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, the Minister made the case for protecting living standards and keeping costs low by targeting support at those in need. Universal energy bill support, he warned, would be counterproductive: “there is nothing progressive about not taking the state of the public finances seriously”. His case was backed by mathematical reasoning that even Rishi Sunak, champion of maths in schools, would struggle to fault:
The simple version of my argument is that you don’t help higher income households if you cut their energy bills today but put up their taxes and mortgage bills tomorrow. Here’s some maths to flesh this out a bit. Let’s assume government offers every household £100 off their energy bills. You might think all that is going on here is that households get lower energy bills, and government picks up the £3bn cost. (…) But that is not all that happens. (…) this fiscal stimulus pushes up on inflation and on interest rates. (…) This would mean the cost of a typical £215,000 new 2- year fixed mortgage rising by £30 to £60 a year. (…) But that is not all that rises – so does government debt. (…) In this example that would see debt rise by between £170 to £210 per household – which ultimately means tax of that order of magnitude if a given level of debt is to be maintained.
How (not) to deal with inequality?
Drawing on the rich material of the Deaton Review on Inequalities, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) released its latest policy recommendations for reducing inequality in Britain. The report touches on four policy areas related to jobs, regions, education, and wealth. As the FT noted, the IFS paper dismisses wealth taxes as inefficient and suggests other ways to reduce inequality.
But wealth may not even be the most important form of inequality, according to polling undertaken for the report, which finds that people think regional inequalities are the worst kind. Writing in the FT, IFS Director Helen Miller outlines the challenges inherent to reducing economic differences between regions:
Creating another major economic hub outside London would require co-ordination across multiple policy areas — something governments have consistently struggled with. There is also the challenge of where new hubs should be: large-scale agglomeration will only benefit a small number of places. Directly creating geographic clusters would require picking areas that “win”, while spreading resources too thinly risks being ineffective.
An alternative is to move more control out of Westminster. The UK is a highly centralised state. Shifting decision-making could produce better tailored policies, strengthen accountability and support longer-term strategies. But devolution also comes with risks. It might mean fragmentation or wasted resources — even widening inequalities if some areas are better able to make use of new powers.
Whatever the approach, the UK would benefit from a clear strategy that sets out not just the goals, but the trade-offs. That is an urgent first step to fixing a problem that the UK has lived with for too long.
Writing in the Times, former IFS Director Paul Johnson says that a lack of growth is worsening the effects of inequalities:
Stagnation in combination with a high level of income inequality is a recipe for discontent. It exacerbates other kinds of inequalities. Wealth has become much more important relative to income. The older generation has thrived, the younger has not. Inheritances have mushroomed. For some. Social mobility has declined. Geographical differences have ossified. Life expectancy has stalled and health inequalities have increased. All this accompanied by shifting sands of political polarisation between the more and less highly educated, the old and the young, homeowners and renters.
Freeze my rent, anyone?
Chancellor Rachel Reeves was said to be considering freezing rents, though Downing Street is denying the plans. The New Economics Foundation has long backed similar policies, as in this paper from 2019:
Rent controls should make rents more affordable as well as limiting runaway growth: Cities with comparably high rent to London, such as Berlin, have implemented rent stabilisation models within tenancies that limit growth but do not tackle existing high rent levels. In 2015, Berlin implemented a ‘rent brake’ to slow down increases, by capping the price of a new lease at 10% above local averages. Despite this, rents grew by almost 10% in the first two years following the rent brake. The housing movement has since successfully campaigned for a stronger five year rent-freeze, which will bring rents down in relative terms.
Not only is the introduction of rent control an opportunity to tackle underlying high rents, but it is also not clear that simply limiting runaway growth will have a lasting impact on rents. Due to the incongruity between income and rental growth and given that London’s rental market is the most expensive in Europe, a rent control policy for London must bring rents down, as well as curbing future increases.
The same paper, though, is cautious of sudden implementation:
Rent controls should be implemented gradually over time: Existing examples of rent controls across the world have generally evolved and developed over decades, and the sudden imposition of significant rent controls may lead to negative market effects. Rent controls should be introduced in a stepped manner, to gradually transition the PRS to the new rent levels.
Book of the week:
Leftism Reinvented: Western Parties from Socialism to Neoliberalism by Stephanie L. Mudge. A wide ranging read on how leftism was transformed in Britain, Sweden, Germany and the United States. It discusses the role of ‘spin’ doctors, think tanks and the politicians themselves.
Podcast of the week:
We’ve been loving the New Statesman podcast this week, and it’s exciting to hear it’ll now run as a weekly format each Thursday with Tom McTague, Anoosh Chakelian and Ailbhe Rea.
Video of the week:
The architect behind the CityEd YouTube channel discusses the solutions for building more housing in Britain (spoiler: build more tower blocks). An entertaining watch. Features experts including those at the Centre for Cities: