After what appears to have been an eternity of dithering today, Labour is finally announcing that it has abandoned its pledge to spend £28 billion a year on the climate transition that we know must take place if this country is to have any chance of meeting its own legally set obligation to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
This action on Labour's part is politically incomprehensible. Announcing this today, when the Tories are in complete mayhem after yesterday‘s debacle from Sunak at Prime Minister's Questions, is extraordinary.
Conceding this point the day after the Tories had civil servants prepare a report on this plan, suggesting it to be unaffordable in the Tories' opinion, is to imply that Labour has no clue what it is talking about, and that the Tories really are masters of this issue. That is a staggeringly politically incompetent thing to do.
And, let's be clear, that abandoning this proposal is economically illiterate, as I suggested in the Guardian a few days ago. Not only would this plan pay for itself out of the economic multiplier effects that it would generate, which would give rise to significant further private sector investment and private spending, and so tax paid, it is also massively less than the expenditure that we know is actually required if net zero is to be achieved. Abandoning this commitment is, then, an act of gross irresponsibility that can only lead us to think that further similar acts on other issues should be what we must expect from a Labour government.
That has enormous political consequences. When Labour has said almost nothing about what it will do in office that is of any consequence, this was the one cause that Labour seemed to be championing that people might believe in. As far as I can see, after abandoning it, Labour now stands for nothing except more austerity. As electoral offerings go, that has to be about the most dismal that any party could present, yet that is what Labour wants to put to the people of this country.
The right-wing of Labour often likes to claim that the left-wing manifestos that it has, very rarely, presented to the public have been the longest suicide notes in its history. They have always been wrong to say so, but this abandonment of hope by Labour, which is what today's announcement will represent, will undoubtedly be the shortest suicide note in its history.
Any party seeking power without a vision or plan and without any hint of hope being on offer does not deserve to be elected. That is where Starmer is putting Labour.
Politics rarely witnesses something quite as incompetent as this, unless it was Sunak's performance at PMQs yesterday.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There is clearly a lack of mental capacity in the country to understand that it’s all about the creation of money in relation to real resources, that both the state and licenced banks create the money from thin air and it’s the state’s job to see the combined money creation neither over or under bids those real resources. These are the only meaningful “fiscal rules” worth bothering with.
Good comment
which means banking has to be regulated. “Independent” central Banks will try to run things for their agenda, not the that of the public good.
Once again we return to J M Keynes: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford”.
If, and when, Labour do get into power, I can just see the scenario when they arrive to start their new jobs at the Treasury.
“Look Chancellor, someone’s left us a note.”
It says “There’s still no Money “
Even Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, World Economy Editor of The Daily Telegraph, agrees, and makes a strong case in yesterday’ paper, that Labour should embrace their former plan for Green Investment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/06/labour-proclaim-its-28bn-green-plan-from-rooftops/
Thank you for pointing out what can only be called a capitulation to vested interests.
But let us sum it up.
A Tory prime minister – out of his depth and running out of road – basically and petulantly dis-honoured his office yesterday and Labour’s response in appearing to capitalise on that is to effectively …………………….side with the people that are trying to defeat.
The signally to vested interests is now so loud as to be obvious.
Labour seem to have become signatories to the Tories and Big Carbon’s suicide note which is going to be the longest suicide note in human history.
I am running out of things to say and all I can say is that this is staggeringly bad. Labour must thing some of us were born yesterday.
It’s more akin to a suicide bomber, as the plan is to take the rest of us with them.
Why doesn’t Starmer simply say that the £28bn will be investigated when in power and they’ve “seen the books”. No need to shelve, can just repeat this comment.
Because he is terrified of the Tories
Starmer is now terrified of two things: first, that Tory attacks cause him to lose the election; second that, despite the attacks, he wins and is then responsible for turning the country around. As the scale of the recovery task becomes ever more obvious, I suspect the second fear is greater than the first. Being a timid soul his response is to retreat into whatever dogma is flavour of the day, on the basis that one cannot be criticised for following “accepted principles”. The current dogma comes from the hard right, stoked by Farage and Reform, to which tune the Tories dance and Starmer apes. What hope?
More like terrified of the Tory press.
Labour’s Chris Bryant insists they will spend the money.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-will-spend-28bn-on-green-pledges-shadow-minister-tells-sky-news-13065938
The Labour leadership group are so incompetent (not to mention, clueless) that they will probably chastise him for making this statement!
Starmer always times it well doesn’t he.
World’s first year-long breach of key 1.5C warming limit
For the first time, global warming has exceeded 1.5C across an entire year, according to the EU’s climate service.
World leaders promised in 2015 to try to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5C, which is seen as crucial to help avoid the most damaging impacts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310
Idiots.
Agreed
Staggering
And he just does not care
…and 2024 has got off to a terrific start!
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
The EU has started the l hard slog on their response to climate change. Lots to negotiate with various ‘shareholders’ to (farmers, motorists, etc). If it finally comes to fruition it will could pull the U.K. in.
Following is part of the ‘Conclusion’ from Nathallie Tocci’s book ‘A Green and Global Europe’.
‘This book makes a far more fundamental claim. Yes, climate change has critical security and even defence implications. These must be factored into foreign and defence policy-making both in Europe and elsewhere. But climate change and the energy transition go much deeper and wider. They affect society, industry, finance, technology, security and the economy, lying at the core of the future of our liberal democracies at a time when they need to demonstrate their enduring worth. Climate and the energy transition will determine the prosperity and security of present and future generations, and they will fundamentally shape Europe’s role in an ever more contested and connected world. The existential nature of the climate challenge alongside the magnitude and complexity of the energy transition require an all-of-government approach spanning internal and external policies and institutions, as well as civil society, academia, the media and the private sector.’
https://www.bigissue.com/news/environment/what-will-the-world-look-like-in-2050/
This article compares life in 2050 if climate change is successfully tackled, or it isn’t!
It seems relevant to this blog post.
I am appalled that Labour is climbing down from this commitment, its most important pledge of change, in my opinion.
You’ve got to wonder how serious they are about their 5 missions. What will be dropped next?
What is the point of voting in the next election?
To show a co0mmitment to democracy
Agreed. Vote, and even better get active. Parties wont change unless enough of us work to change them
And yes it can be seriously frustrating
By voting for who? We don’t appear to have a choice. There isn’t a credible party.
Decide who is closest and then get involved. Make some constructive noise, locally and/or nationally. The apathy and political ignorance of so much of the U.K. public is a huge part of the problem. No need to be part of that. There are well informed people on this blog.
‘What did you do in the war Mum/Dad?’
“Any party seeking power without a vision or plan and without any hint of hope being on offer does not deserve to be elected.”
There you go again!
Of course LINO have a vision & a plan & hope abounds within the upper ranks of the party. Whether they deserve to be elected is irrelevant given that under UK “democracy” they are buggins & it is their turn.
As for the vision, plan and hope…………the upper parts of LINO have a vision of personal wealth a la Bliar, they have a plan to achieve this through pandering to bankers, salami-slicing what is left of the gov bits of the NHS to the proivate sector and they are hoping to pull this all off within one electoral cycle. Starmer, Streeting, even the hopeless Reeves dream of getting the money that Mandelson and Bliar made. After all, if you are not in politics for the flithy lucre, what are you in politics for?
Unreasonable? look how they pander to the money men. Watch how people are deselected or ejected from the party because they are too socilaist or anti-semtic or… or their face does not fit.
If they ask me nicely I can tell them where to buy their hypocrisy supplies – wholesale (I get a good deal with my friend Lucifer).
Since you mention abandoning hope’, I see that the Post Office Scandal has fallen off the front pages. Kevin Hollinrake MP, the Post Office Minster has disappeared into the thick glue of inertia that overwhelms all Government activity.
Could someone please tell me on what sane grounds of good Government the Post Office is still being left in charge of dealing with Postmasters/Mistresses claims for compensation? The Post Office has already failed monstrously to discharge its obligations. The Government owns the Post Office; 100%. This is intolerable nd unendurable. The responsibility for this twenty year catastrophe is principally the Government and Parliament, and it is failing as badly as the Post Office, because it should have known; could have known years ago; and is still failing the British people; who have made it clear this requires faster, more decisive action NOW.
This is now a monstrous Government failure. The whole Post Office executive requires to be removed from all decision making on all matters relating to the scandal; and their independent, unsupervised access to the records and direct communications with claimants cease. An independent body requires to take charge of the whole compensation responsibility, and report directly to the Minister; actually, in preference directly to the PM. The time for delay is over.
Was just thinking this earlier John, that it’s gone strangely quiet, of been overtaken by other events. Horizon still in Post Offices and still making errors for subpostmasters to rectify daily. Mr Bates was offered a ‘derisory’ one sixth of what he feels is due.
It may have gone quiet because they enquiry has finished the latest round of evidence and there are no daily scandals to report based on the, literally, incredible evidence that has been given by Post Office investigators and some of their lawyers.
The 24 hour rolling news cycle has produced a media that is almost incapable of focusing on any issue for a significant length of time. Something else will turn up and yesterday’s important issue slides away. Ukraine barely got a mention after Gaza started. The king’s cancer diagnosis was apparently more important than two wars. And so on.
Part of the reason is that there is little new to say this week. The Post Office inquiry’s hearings ended last week. The next phase of hearings is scheduled to run from April to July so I expect this will come back to the news agenda then.
Thank you, Richard and readers.
Starmer is rightly highlighted as the villain here, but, from what I have observed and heard in the past couple of years, we should focus attention on the malign influence of Blair and Mandelson and their donors. They are no less dangerous than Tufton Street.
A year ago, there was a presentation in NYC about the business opportunities arising from climate change, new coastal resorts in the east and the new California, i.e. vineyards, in the northern plains. This is how dangerous the wealthy and their proxies are. The planet can’t afford them.
BTW the Koch family are often and rightly castigated for their role in preventing measures to combat climate change. As per https://kochdisruptivetechnologies.com/#20e20f2, they hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.
Paraphrasing an interesting comment from Robert Peston on the ITV website this afternoon, if Starmer is allowing the Tories to set the economic agenda and there is no choice, why bother to vote Labour.
Precisely
Presumably he is presenting Labour as ‘nicer people’.
There are, of course lots of problems with such a strategy ……..
Apathy could well be Labour’s biggest threat as they fail to give people anything to vote for. That applies both to natural Labour voters and to those who might switch.
You could find out who to vote for by following this.
https://weownit.org.uk/blog/pledge-nhs-key-facts-candidates-and-activists-0
I think the best we can hope for is a (series of) hung parliaments. In principle the parties would then have to actually negotiate with each other to agree policies (heaven protect us!). The Libdems failure to do this in 2010, apparently for personal gain, is one reason to despise them. But I am not optimistic, in our FPTP electoral system, that this can happen.
The problem with Labour is both that they have quite extreme right wing policies and that they can’t be trusted. A Labour activist friend said, ahh but they’ll actually spend the money after the election. This gives me no comfort. Either they don’t think that green investment is necessary, or that they are deliberately lying to the electorate. Neither is a reason to vote for them.
In the end I shall probably hold my nose, cross my fingers and vote Libdem, even though I detest them, in the hope of depriving Labour of too large a majority (Libdems are the contender against Tories round here).
It’s horrible, there is no one to vote for. But what else can one do 🙁
I too will be holding my nose – my local LibDem candidate really does not seem very good for a start.
Oh, the wonders of FPTP! Left in place by New Labour when they had a golden opportunity to replace it. Thanks Tony.
And New Labour Mk2 wants to keep it, as do the appalling Tories. I refuse to be bullied by the labour morons into voting for them on the basis that a vote for the greens is ‘wasted’ because of a rotten system they refuse to get rid of.
We’ll be voting green as they are the only party that takes the climate crisis sufficiently seriously it seems. And has other policies that labour would now regard as dangerously left wing.
For reference (not the ghastly fake ‘balance’ of the BBC; and certainly not with my endorsement!):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/08/labour-28bn-green-prosperity-plan-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves
I see the Grauniad invites responses for their letters column: max 309 words! Answers to the existential crisis, only on a postcard please…
Colin Hines and I submit letters much more often than we are published