century

“We don’t go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York–of being obliged to print both sides. We’re going to beat this son of a bitch Sinclair any way we can. . . . We’re going to kill him.”

The speaker: Kyle Palmer, Los Angeles Times political editor, to Turner Catledge of the New York Times.

The time: 1934, when socialist writer Upton Sinclair, who had just swept the Democratic primary for governor of California, threatened to beat handily the GOP candidate, Frank Merriam, in the November election.

Kyle Palmer, the pope of Southern California right-wing politics, was neither kidding nor exaggerating. Nor was he exceptional in his venom toward Upton Sinclair and his mass movement, End Poverty in California (EPIC). According to Greg Mitchell in his fascinating and valuable study, EPIC “was nothing less than a roundabout route to socialism.” On this point, “Political pundits, financial columnists, and White House aides, for once, agreed: Sinclair’s victory represented the high tide of radicalism in the United States.” This tide had to be pushed back, or California would suffocate under the weight of Sinclair’s “maggot-like horde” of supporters, as the Los Angeles Times called EPICers.

In 1934, a year racked by general strikes and epidemic unemployment, the maverick pamphleteer-novelist Sinclair–author of muckraking tracts like “The Jungle” and the most widely translated American writer abroad–was a menace not only to the so-called Vested Interests. Down deep, he embodied a revulsion felt by many Californians toward the capitalist system. EPIC’s program of production-for-use-not-profit, land colonies, barter exchanges and cooperation versus competition was a potentially deadly blow to the American Dream. It was subversive because it spoke to the misery of desperate, Depression-ruined Americans yearning for relief from the day-to-day savagery of a skewed, inefficient system that seemed to be failing everybody but the very rich. At its height, EPIC enrolled 100,000 members from San Diego to Sacramento, and its newspaper sold 2 million copies.

In “The Campaign of the Century,” Greg Mitchell has chosen to focus not on EPIC itself but “on the cataclysmic response to Sinclair’s emergence as the Democratic nominee.” Thus we learn relatively little about EPIC or about Sinclair, but a lot about the nuts and bolts of the “most astonishing . . . smear campaign ever directed against a major candidate.” Our present-day “media politics” with its emphasis on image over substance, was born in the ferocious, fraudulent anti-Sinclair campaign, says Mitchell.

A subtext of Mitchell’s book is how strongly adherents felt about Sinclair and EPIC. They “came from every strata, although nearly all were white. It was not . . . a poor people’s movement. Most of the activists were middle-class and middle-aged . . . Many were down-on-their-luck businessmen.” Any given EPIC club might include “Utopians, technocrats, Townsendites, progressive Republicans, New Deal Democrats, ex-Socialists and secret Communists, all united by a belief in a perfectible society.” No EPIC, aside from clerical staff, earned a cent from the movement. “Members paid a dollar, penny, or a collar button” to join; “Some EPICs hocked the gold fillings in their teeth to raise money.” Although broad-based and decentralized, “EPIC was far from democratic” and indifferent to unions. And Sinclair’s portrait occupied a holy place in many homes.

In any other state, EPIC might never have flown. But California’s populist tradition, open-mindedness (or wackiness), absence of party bosses or deep ethnic loyalties meant that a challenge to established authority was as relatively easy to mount as it was difficult to organize a counter-revolution. At first, the state’s wealthy were so rattled that their political representatives were caught completely off balance by Sinclair’s spectacular rise. Only loonies had expected him to win the primary, and nobody had been crazy enough to predict he would outpoll all six of his opponents together.

But like a great octopus, California’s Republicans and conservative Democrats, equally terrified of EPIC, slowly thrashed up from the murk of politics-as-usual to deal with the “enemy within.” “The prospect of a socialist governing the nation’s most volatile state,” says Mitchell, “sparked nothing less than a revolution in American politics.”

Spurred by “fear and desperation,” ad men like Albert Lasker and especially Clem Whittaker, hired conservative guns, broke the old rules and “virtually invented the modern media campaign.” Whittaker and his associate Leone Baxter introduced the radical idea that free-lance outsiders like themselves, not party chiefs, would “handle every aspect of a political campaign.” Whittaker’s “cozy relationship” with California’s 700 newspaper publishers meant that local editors were happy to run his press releases “as news stories–even as editorials.” The anti-Sinclair “lie factory” twisted and distorted; but worst of all, his enemies quoted from Upton Sinclair’s own works, in which he had attacked everything from wedded bliss (“marriage plus prostitution”) to religion (“a mighty fortress of graft”) and the Boy Scouts. After his defeat, Sinclair confessed wearily and with justice, “I talk too much. I write too much, too.”

By most accounts, Sinclair was a decent, generous, puritanical man of genuine sweetness. What his blurted half-jokes and honest indiscretions failed to supply, Hollywood and Madison Avenue concocted by way of movie propaganda and, probably even more effectively, radio shots–like an anti-Sinclair “One Man’s Family”-type series. Film studio bosses, alarmed by Sinclair’s not-very-serious threat to socialize movie production, colluded with what a Scripps-Howard reporter called a “reign of unreason bordering on hysteria.” Big-time screenwriters like Carey Wilson and directors like Felix Feist (later of “Peyton Place” fame) were enlisted or dragooned to produce Goebbelsesque films, often using faked footage, that drilled home the message: EPIC equals Armageddon. Studio workers were forced to contribute to Frank Merriam’s campaign. Very few Hollywood stars had the guts to refuse. (Holdouts included James Cagney and Jean Harlow.)

Law ‘n’ order also came to the rescue of the anti-Sinclair forces. Election officials, GOP activists and local district attorneys intimidated EPIC supporters away from the polls by challenging the credentials of at least 150,000 voters and threatening to arrest them. All across the state preachers thundered, “Go and Sinclair no more!” and Aimee Semple McPherson, hungry for respectability after her recent kidnaping hoax, turned against Sinclair, despite the pro-EPIC sympathies of her flock.

Finally, the Democrats themselves carved up EPIC. At first friendly to Sinclair, President Roosevelt, needing conservative support for his faltering New Deal, cut a deal with the Republicans. In return for Frank Merriam converting to a pallid form of New Dealism, the party dumped the divisive Sinclair. Frightened Democrats and “third party” anti-EPICers formed around a candidate named Haight, who may have drawn off enough votes to beat the insurgent–but not by all that much. Final results: Merriam 1,100,000; Sinclair 900,000; Haight 300,000. In defeat, Sinclair received twice as many votes as any previous Democratic candidate for governor.

EPIC soon disappeared in a backlash of internal Red-baiting. (The communists and socialists opposed EPIC, but the Communist Party also tried to take it over.) Sinclair stopped muckraking to write the “Lanny Budd” series of best-sellers. Waves of fright and self-interest quickly covered over EPIC’s writing in the sand. Today, who remembers it?

Later, Sinclair insisted that the EPIC campaign had “changed the whole reactionary tone of the state.” EPIC was “the acorn from which evolved the tree of whatever liberalism we have in California,” claimed state Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk, a Sinclair supporter in ’34. And as a direct result of EPIC and the studio bosses’ much-resented bullying, “politics in Hollywood moved steadily to the left over the next few years.”

Of course, the Right learned, too. “A number of men who would become legends in California politics, on both sides of the ideological fence, virtually cut their teeth on the ’34 campaign,” writes Mitchell. These included Earl Warren (Merriam’s campaign manager), Asa Call, Edmund G. (Pat) Brown (sending what encoded messages to his son today?), Murray Chotiner, Augustus Hawkins, Cuthbert Olson–a whole generation of pols whose experience taught them just how powerful the rich, who own the media, can be when aroused.

Lessons for liberals are harder to come by in this sizzling, rambunctiously useful book. If we take note of this nation’s recent rash of insurgencies–from Carol Moseley Braun to Ross Perot–maybe one lesson is that nothing good ever completely dies, it just goes to sleep for a while.

BOOK MARK: For an excerpt from “The Campaign of the Century,” see the Opinion section, Page 6.

The UK bond market is currently experiencing a period of intense volatility, with the yield on 30-year government bonds, known as gilts, climbing to its highest point since 1998.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Tuesday, 30-year gilt yields rose as much as 0.14% to 5.79%, their highest level this century, before dipping slightly to around 5.6% at the time of writing.

The yield on the 10-year gilt also climbed as much as 0.15% to 5.11%, very close to the 18-year high of 5.12% hit earlier in the Iran war. It has since lowered somewhat to roughly 4.93% on Thursday.

Bond prices and yields have an inverse relationship. Bond yields rise when prices fall in order to increase investment attractiveness as demand for the debt weakens.

The surge in gilt yields indicates that investors currently perceive UK debt as a riskier prospect than other lending options, requiring a larger premium to commit their capital over the long term.

Presently, there are several reasons for this evident but abnormal lack of confidence.

The primary catalyst is the fear that the Bank of England may be forced to keep interest rates higher for longer to mitigate the chance that inflation will remain “sticky” and not return to the 2% target as quickly as previously hoped.

This estimation has been fuelled by surging energy prices due to the disruption caused by the Iran war. Gilts have continuously sold off during the conflict.

Speaking to Euronews, Richard Carter, head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, added that “the UK is expected to be the worst hit developed economy by events in the Middle East due to its reliance on energy imports, so the longer energy prices remain elevated, the deeper the pain the country is likely to experience.”

Beyond geopolitics and global energy markets, there are many domestic factors currently contributing to the exceptional distrust in UK debt.

Keir Starmer, fiscal policy and local elections

Political uncertainty and fiscal policy are also playing a central role in the recent and severe gilts sell-off.

In 2024, after Keir Starmer’s election, the Labour party pledged “fiscal discipline” and established a long-term framework in the Autumn Budget to distinguish the new government’s approach from the former.

The plan introduced the “Stability Rule” mandating that the current budget, which covers day-to-day costs such as public sector salaries and welfare, must be in surplus by the end of 2029/30. This effectively prohibits borrowing to fund the ongoing operations of the British state.

Additionally, the “Investment Rule” was also put forward to target the national balance sheet. This norm requires Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) to be falling as a percentage of GDP within the same timeframe as the “Stability Rule”.

By using PSNFL rather than the traditional measure of net debt, the UK Treasury has more room to borrow for long-term capital projects like infrastructure and green energy, which are technically classified as “investments” rather than “spending”.

Finally, the Budget Responsibility Act 2024established a “fiscal lock”, legally preventing any significant tax or spending changes from being introduced without an independent assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Despite all these rigid guardrails, bond markets are now sceptical because investors fear political necessity will eventually override fiscal prudence.

Recent scrutiny of Starmer has intensified as he faces a mounting challenge from the left of his party, where dissenting voices are calling for a shift away from “fiscal conservatism” to address funding crises in the NHS and local government.

On top of that, the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, and the revelations of his past friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, have severely damaged Starmer’s administration over the last few months.

The problems have culminated in the local elections taking place in 136 authorities for more than 5,000 council seats on Thursday. More than half of the seats up for grabs this week are being defended by Starmer’s party.

Analysts project that Labour will suffer a massive loss and potentially end up over 1,000 councillors down. Any major setback will certainly increase internal pressure to oust Keir Starmer as the leader in which case snap elections could be triggered.

The head of markets at AJ Bell, Dan Coatsworth, explained to Euronews that “investors will be watching bond markets like a hawk over the coming days as the results of the UK local elections are released. Any major setback to Labour will fuel calls for Keir Starmer to be replaced as prime minister and if that happens, bond markets will want to know who is taking over.”

“The obvious challengers, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham, are seen as candidates who might push for greater government borrowing and spending, which could take gilt yields even higher. Fundamentally, there is a real risk of gilt yields soaring if Labour experiences a wipeout in the local elections,” Coatsworth added.

Speaking to Euronews, the head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, Richard Carter, conveyed the same sentiment.

“The uncertain UK political backdrop has played a role ahead of the local elections with gilt investors concerned about a Labour Party lurch to the left should Keir Starmer either be replaced or have little choice but to appease his backbenchers in the wake of challenging results.”

Effectively, these local results are no longer just a measure of regional popularity, but a high-stakes verdict of political viability that could determine the long-term stability of British borrowing costs.

The cost to the UK Treasury, businesses and households

For the British government, the consequences of the ongoing bond market shift are measured in billions of pounds as the UK’s debt-interest bill is highly sensitive to fluctuations in gilt yields.

According to estimates from fiscal watchdogs, every 0.25% rise in government borrowing costs adds approximately £2.5 billion (€2.9bn) to the annual debt-servicing cost. A 0.5% increase, which has already been observed this spring, therefore requires the UK Treasury to find an extra £5 billion (€5.8bn) every year just to pay interest.

The rise in gilt yields also has a direct and immediate impact on the real economy as they serve as the benchmark for pricing a vast array of financial products, most notably fixed-rate mortgages.

As yields climb, lenders adjust their swap rates, which inevitably leads to higher monthly repayments for millions of homeowners looking to refinance.

Businesses also feel the squeeze. The cost of corporate loans and commercial credit is often tied to the yield curve. When the state has to pay more to borrow, the private sector follows suit, potentially stifling investment and slowing economic growth.

“A gilt yield shock might be called a stealth tax, but it is not an intentional one. It would be the knock-on effects of bond prices falling and yields going up, which can negatively affect asset prices and tighten financial conditions,” Coatsworth told Euronews.

“Consumers would experience higher mortgage costs and potentially spend less money, particularly if companies scale back hiring if their borrowing costs rise from higher gilt yields, as the two are intertwined. It could also lead to lower public spending and pave the way for tax rises,” Coatsworth added.

Every increase in the cost of debt limits the amount of capital available for private innovation and reduces the disposable income of households already struggling with the cost of living.

A HISTORIC railway station is set to open soon after being reconstructed brick by brick – nine miles from its original location.

The Victorian station was originally built in 1867, but fell into disuse over the last century.

Wansford Road station, near Peterborough, had been facing demolition to make room for the proposed A47 dual carriageway.

However, in 2022 an agreement was reached between Nene Valley Railway (NVR) and National Highways for the building to be dismantled and re-built.

National Highways also granted nearly £200,000 in funding towards the project.

Having been dismantled in April 2024, the limestone station has almost completed its re-location to Peterborough, now under the new name of ‘Woodstone Wharf Station’.

GROUNDED

Ryanair threatens to scrap all flights at another popular European airport

END OF AN ERA

Beloved English museum is forced to shut forever after being deemed ‘unsafe’

The historic building will serve as a gateway to both Railworld Wildlife Haven and the NVR, and features a booking office, waiting room and administration office.

Stan Bell, who led the project at The Wansford Road CIO, said: “It’s clear that the building will have a huge rejuvenating impact on this often-forgotten part of Peterborough.

“We’ve been incredibly lucky to have the support of National Highways.”

The original railway served passengers from Stamford to Wansford, although it closed by 1929.

The building was then converted into a private residence, before falling into disrepair.

The £100 million proposal to create a dual carriageway for the A47 was also scrapped in July last year, due to planning complications and rising costs.

BEYONCE and hubby Jay-Z are looking to move to France — after ditching plans for a UK home.

The music power couple, who abandoned househunting in the Cotswolds due to concerns about flooding, are said to be eyeing up a stunning chateau near Bordeaux.

Crazy In Love singer Beyoncé, 44, and Jay-Z, 56, are already huge fans of the famous wine region – with the 99 Problems rapper celebrating his birthday there in 2023.

Sources say the US pair are looking at a 16th century estate boasting 10 bedrooms and eight bathrooms, nestled in a commune.

Locals have told how the area is abuzz with talk of the A-listers joining their community – which is described as the French equivalent to the Cotswolds.

Businesses have reportedly been sworn to secrecy about the couple’s potential arrival.

BEIGEY BEY

Beyonce shows off curves in sexy beige bustier, shorts and fishnets

HOT WHEELS

Beyonce stuns in busty racing suit before Lewis takes her around Vegas GP track

One local said: “Everyone is talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z moving to the area.

“It’s all been shrouded in secrecy, with local businesses and tradespeople forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, but theirs are the names on everyone’s lips.”

Residents have reported a recent surge in private planes landing at the closest airport.

One source also told how a job description has gone on a local noticeboard for an experienced property manager working with VIP clients at an historic estate.

One of the requirements for the role is “absolute discretion”.

The superstar couple — worth a combined £1.5billion — were said to be buying a £7.5million 58-acre plot in the Cotswolds, following the footsteps of several celebrities.

Planning permission was secured for the seven-bedroom property.

But insiders said the pair, who have three children together, turned their backs on the area after learning it was prone to flooding.

A source told The Sun: “Beyonce and Jay-Z buying this plot of land was the talk of the Cotswolds, so many locals were excited about them moving in.

“But the plan appears to have fallen through.”

Despite their snub the Cotswolds have attracted a raft of celebrities including Ellie Goulding, James Blunt, Kate Moss, Amanda Holden, Tom Cruise, Liam Gallagher and Lily Allen.

TV host Ellen Degeneres and wife Portia de Rossi also moved to the area and renovated a farmhouse which they are selling for £22.5million.