Ford goes Full Austerity

Today’s headline – Ford – is neither a triumph nor failure.

This time of year, economists and analysts trawl through company reports, hawkishly eyeing up the losers and winners from the past year, but today’s headline – Ford – is neither a triumph nor failure. The US car giant’s better-than-expected profits in North America, with revenues up 13 per cent, are buttressed against a 21 per cent decline in Europe.

However, the US car giant needs to be more worried about its performance across the water. Ford’s sales on the continent have plummeted to levels last seen in 1995 and what is worrying is that Ford’s executives aren’t worried. The company today released the bland comment citing that, “The business environment remains uncertain, and Ford will continue to monitor the situation in Europe and take further action as necessary”.

Such a statement, void of commitment, will do little to calm the company’s investors, let alone its European plant workers. Factory redundancies before Christmas caused riots in Genk, Belgium. In the UK job losses will also result out of plant closures in Southampton and Dagenham, East London.

So why is Ford not overly concerned of its continental money well? In October it rolled out its “European Transformation Plan”. This plan writes off afore mentioned factory closures as “cost efficiency actions”. It also forecast today’s headline European losses as the company consolidates assembly plants, introduces a new cars and focuses on increasing its brand and cutting costs.

Overall, it appears that Ford has implemented a policy akin to that of our Coalition Government. Austerity is the key word and plans to be for the next half decade for Ford’s European operations. Poor growth results will be ignored as unfortunate consequences of a larger plan as Ford, held up by US profits, will continue to cut expenditure in Europe.

While it comes as no surprise that Europe has been a stagnant market for cars since 2007, the UK has actually bucked that trend with sales hitting a four year high. And our most popular car – the Ford Focus.

In the past, Ford has often provoked strong reactions. Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war