Westminster Politics

So you agree with his decision to do a U turn on Labour Green Pledge. And if so, what do you see as the positives of doing that?

I understand and agree with Starmer's decision to not hand the Tories a big stick to hit him with when the GE free-for-all starts. It was a mistake, what a year or two back, to put any spending totals out on anything, when there was still over two years (at least) to go to the GE. I take heart from the fact he is learning from his (Ms Reeves) mistakes, before its two late.

Labour is still committed to Greening the Economy, for the benefit of future generations, but it also has to take care of some urgent changes needed for the current generation, e.g. NHS, (Dentistry) the latest, to give people here and now some hope. There are millions of ordinary folk who haven't got enough to live on, with unsecured jobs, inadequate housing, endless waiting lists, etc.etc.

We all know the 'climate clock' is ticking, but not everybody in the world has a clock, or wants to even look at it. There are massive issues right now, around the world, conflicts already, some growing, where we might have to /or get forced to be involved, energy, water and other resource management, migration, all demanding attention, and that usually means expenditure.

Starmer's right an incoming government will have to look at the books (as always) and then decided what goes where.
 
No, we are not a country with an economy of their scale. The vast majority our "our wealth" leaves the country via private enterprise. Completely different to China and the USA.

It appears you understand even less about economics than you do about electricity supply.

When you spend money on business, much of that money is immediately returned to you through methods such as VAT, employee income tax. Some of the rest of the money goes to suppliers who also pay VAT, employee income tax and such like. They in turn buy raw materials, paying VAT, employees, perhaps import tariffs...

The money comes back to you over and over on any "real" project, even if the company profits often end up going abroad (probably via the British shadow banking network but let's not go there). The only way you lose is if you let the government spend your money on corrupt contracts with their mates or scam technology companies with little real output, possibly just middle manning to some foreign private firm who do any real work required and requiring minimal employment or purchasing in this country. E.g. the PPE scandal, or Capita not actually doing any of the infrastructure work they were being paid for but still getting contracts.

Green technology and infrastructure necessarily involves lots of real work in this country, hence it will necessarily return well for the country. This is what all the economists are saying and it also just stands to reason if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

Politically this U-turn may be a good idea, who am I to say. But economically it's fecking dumb as shit.
 
And France and the rest of the G7? We're way behind all of them in planned green investment or investment of any kind, this isn't a super power issue it's an economic imperative for any sizeable economy. It's not even a choice, we're going to have to pay to mitigate the impacts of climate change at some point and if we don't keep up with green industry we'll be left behind at huge cost.

Your talk above of no headroom isn't true, current treasury reports are pointing to reductions in inflation and increased slack in the economy in the next few years which is why there's a call for investment. There just isn't anything backing up Labours plans here. Politically we need a separate budget for capital investment that is run by the treasury instead of politicians because driving such decisions off short term political optics is just ridiculous. I'm fairly sure the original 28 billion figure came from an OBR or treasury report that concluded we needed a minimum of 300 billion over 10 years.

It's just standard Starmer Labour, they're counting on everyone centre and centre-left to vote for them irrespective so they're pushing a simple narrative to win over the exact same Tory voters who believed the household budget shite.
Our telecoms are owned by Spain, rail by Germany, power by France. We own feck all of this economic product.

I don't give AF about Europe tbh, they can do them but in reality their in so much better shape than us.

Also, you do realise you can say whatever you like to get elected, and then do as you please. Issue is everyone wants some sort of purity test at manifesto level. It's childish.

Ref: headroom - the Tories are being quite clear, they're going to spunk that headroom away so it isn't there for the next government.
 
The £28bn compared to that of China USA and EU is a tiny fraction.
And it has nothing to do with wealth. But it has everything to do with investing in spend to save and spend to create high value jobs and spend to stimulate new business opportunities.

Transitioning away from the past toward the green business opportunities of the future is not an optional extra. It is essential that the UK is able to secure at least a small part of this.
And that requires government leadership and not a future government that is afraid to do anything other than cuts and austerity. We have had 14 years of that and look at the results. A country where nothing works.
Why do people keep mentioning the largest economy to ever exist which homes the worlds reserve currency and a country of 1.6bn people with an economy that has spent forty years hoovering up economic value in exchange for cheap labour?

Our country is fecked. The "wealth" and size of our GDP is a mirage.

People basically want a fairly tale, they want a lovely man, in a suit to tell them it'll all be OK. We can spend £100bn in four years "on green revolution" (a meaningless phrase) so everyone can feel less guilty about their rampant consumption.

Our country produces nothing except for washing the world's corrupt money.

Labour have basically taken away the Tories only cudgel against them "how will you find £28bn" and Labour have agreed and effectively said, you're right, we can't find it, so we'll reduce it and be "fiscally responsible".

Amazingly everyone (typically) leaps on them for "u-turning".

It doesn't matter folks. What is said now, doesn't correlate with what happens after an election.

They need to get in, absolutely wipe out the Tories to less than an hundred seats, then they can do whatever the feck they want.

Alas, moaning weirdos want to hate on Labour because they haven't promised everyone a sodding UBI
 
It appears you understand even less about economics than you do about electricity supply.

When you spend money on business, much of that money is immediately returned to you through methods such as VAT, employee income tax. Some of the rest of the money goes to suppliers who also pay VAT, employee income tax and such like. They in turn buy raw materials, paying VAT, employees, perhaps import tariffs...

The money comes back to you over and over on any "real" project, even if the company profits often end up going abroad (probably via the British shadow banking network but let's not go there). The only way you lose is if you let the government spend your money on corrupt contracts with their mates or scam technology companies with little real output, possibly just middle manning to some foreign private firm who do any real work required and requiring minimal employment or purchasing in this country. E.g. the PPE scandal, or Capita not actually doing any of the infrastructure work they were being paid for but still getting contracts.

Green technology and infrastructure necessarily involves lots of real work in this country, hence it will necessarily return well for the country. This is what all the economists are saying and it also just stands to reason if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

Politically this U-turn may be a good idea, who am I to say. But economically it's fecking dumb as shit.
You really think this policy will see the light of day. The nativity is great, perhaps you understand less about politics than everything else.

Magic infrastructure funding is amazing and naturally won't end up like HS2 or Hinckley or that new/dead Berlin airport.

It's not a silver bullet.
 
Seems like it doesn't it. I must have been naive to think otherwise.

It's going to be a very strange election campaign.

The Tories pretend that they haven't been in power for 14 years and have destroyed the country. Vote for us!

Labour say we're broke and won't do anything and anyway , we might upset the Daily Mail - Vote for us!

Neither have any idea how to get the UK out of the mess they imposed on themselves.

The 2029 election should be fun! More of the same with a guaranteed Tory win.
 
And France and the rest of the G7? We're way behind all of them in planned green investment or investment of any kind, this isn't a super power issue it's an economic imperative for any sizeable economy. It's not even a choice, we're going to have to pay to mitigate the impacts of climate change at some point and if we don't keep up with green industry we'll be left behind at huge cost.

Your talk above of no headroom isn't true, current treasury reports are pointing to reductions in inflation and increased slack in the economy in the next few years which is why there's a call for investment. There just isn't anything backing up Labours plans here. Politically we need a separate budget for capital investment that is run by the treasury instead of politicians because driving such decisions off short term political optics is just ridiculous. I'm fairly sure the original 28 billion figure came from an OBR or treasury report that concluded we needed a minimum of 300 billion over 10 years.

It's just standard Starmer Labour, they're counting on everyone centre and centre-left to vote for them irrespective so they're pushing a simple narrative to win over the exact same Tory voters who believed the household budget shite.

Spot on.
 
There's a really interesting book I read years ago when I was in uni (and lucky enough to see the author in a lecture).

The Problem With Interest Tarek Diwany : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is a free copy, but I'd buy a hardcopy and give it a read. He's a scholar in Islamic finance, but the overlap between Islamic finance and what we call in the UK 'ethical' finance is pretty much the same. It removes debt and subsequently interest from the equation, and has a better spread of risk from the 'borrower' to the 'lender' to encourage entrepreneurship and enterprise (in inverted commas as they are technically investor and investee in this model).

Where it can be applied most readily to the UK is in our housing market - and there have been a few companies that have started using shared ownership (and 0 debt) to encourage first time buyers - there's a few companies in that start up space currently (Kuflink, Wayhome, Pfida) (the government shared ownership scheme from a few years ago only solved the problem halfway).

But yea, worth a read.
Thanks. Will have look into the book. Sound really interesting.
 
Why do people keep mentioning the largest economy to ever exist which homes the worlds reserve currency and a country of 1.6bn people with an economy that has spent forty years hoovering up economic value in exchange for cheap labour?

Our country is fecked. The "wealth" and size of our GDP is a mirage.

People basically want a fairly tale, they want a lovely man, in a suit to tell them it'll all be OK. We can spend £100bn in four years "on green revolution" (a meaningless phrase) so everyone can feel less guilty about their rampant consumption.

Our country produces nothing except for washing the world's corrupt money.

Labour have basically taken away the Tories only cudgel against them "how will you find £28bn" and Labour have agreed and effectively said, you're right, we can't find it, so we'll reduce it and be "fiscally responsible".

Amazingly everyone (typically) leaps on them for "u-turning".

It doesn't matter folks. What is said now, doesn't correlate with what happens after an election.

They need to get in, absolutely wipe out the Tories to less than an hundred seats, then they can do whatever the feck they want.

Alas, moaning weirdos want to hate on Labour because they haven't promised everyone a sodding UBI
Why do people keep mentioning the largest economy to ever exist which homes the worlds reserve currency and a country of 1.6bn people with an economy that has spent forty years hoovering up economic value in exchange for cheap labour?

Our country is fecked. The "wealth" and size of our GDP is a mirage.

People basically want a fairly tale, they want a lovely man, in a suit to tell them it'll all be OK. We can spend £100bn in four years "on green revolution" (a meaningless phrase) so everyone can feel less guilty about their rampant consumption.

Our country produces nothing except for washing the world's corrupt money.

Labour have basically taken away the Tories only cudgel against them "how will you find £28bn" and Labour have agreed and effectively said, you're right, we can't find it, so we'll reduce it and be "fiscally responsible".

Amazingly everyone (typically) leaps on them for "u-turning".

It doesn't matter folks. What is said now, doesn't correlate with what happens after an election.

They need to get in, absolutely wipe out the Tories to less than an hundred seats, then they can do whatever the feck they want.

Alas, moaning weirdos want to hate on Labour because they haven't promised everyone a sodding UBI

I was ok with what you were saying until I was classed as a moaning weirdo.
 
If I were in charge of constructing the Tory manifesto I would include spending 28b on green investment. This would give them a massive edge in all the TV interviews and debates, laughing at Starmer.

Half of me is glad they're too stupid to do it and half sad that they wouldn't spend that anyway.
 
If I were in charge of constructing the Tory manifesto I would include spending 28b on green investment. This would give them a massive edge in all the TV interviews and debates, laughing at Starmer.

Half of me is glad they're too stupid to do it and half sad that they wouldn't spend that anyway.
Perfect way to bung money to their donors too
 
The PM is clearly a twat. Couldn't care less what happens to him.

But I am struggling to see what this "transgender comment" is that people are getting angry about. I've read two different articles and neither explains what he actually said and in what context, they just claim he made a comment regarding transgender people.. any context?
 
Watchdog urged to probe Labour’s failure to declare value of HSBC donation

Party accused of breaching Electoral Commission rules by failing to publish value of staffer seconded from banking giant

The Electoral Commission has been urged to investigate Labour over its year-long failure to declare the value of a donation from banking giant HSBC.

HSBC seconded one of its staff members to Keir Starmer’s party in February 2023, in an arrangement that sees the bank continue to pay the staffer’s wages while they carry out work for Labour.

More than a year later, the party has still not published the value of this in-kind donation – an apparent breach of the Electoral Commission’s rules.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-hsbc-donation-electoral-commission-staff-jonathan-reynolds/
.
 
I don't mean you, I'm just, like most, so angry

I am livid to be honest.
I have tried to do my very best toward reducing my greenhouse emissions because I care about the future. I have grandchildren who will hopefully be alive at the end of this century and even beyond.
And so I was happy with Labour Green Pledges. And I care about the future prosperity of my country. And so I believed that it would be highly beneficial to have a government who was going to invest in our future.

But alas they have caved in, even before they were under much pressure to do so.
Edit. Or to use football parlance, he has bottled it.
 
I am livid to be honest.
I have tried to do my very best toward reducing my greenhouse emissions because I care about the future. I have grandchildren who will hopefully be alive at the end of this century and even beyond.
And so I was happy with Labour Green Pledges. And I care about the future prosperity of my country. And so I believed that it would be highly beneficial to have a government who was going to invest in our future.

But alas they have caved in, even before they were under much pressure to do so.
Edit. Or to use football parlance, he has bottled it.

Or maybe, it was never his intention in the first place. Puts out a pledge that would poll well with the left and U-Turns at a perfect time when people are distracted by King Charles and Sunak being a prick.

I don't trust anything Labour says.
 
I am livid to be honest.
I have tried to do my very best toward reducing my greenhouse emissions because I care about the future. I have grandchildren who will hopefully be alive at the end of this century and even beyond.
And so I was happy with Labour Green Pledges. And I care about the future prosperity of my country. And so I believed that it would be highly beneficial to have a government who was going to invest in our future.

But alas they have caved in, even before they were under much pressure to do so.
Edit. Or to use football parlance, he has bottled it.
I don't think he has bottled it, I wouldn't take that much stock into pre-election pledges.
 
Or maybe, it was never his intention in the first place. Puts out a pledge that would poll well with the left and U-Turns at a perfect time when people are distracted by King Charles and Sunak being a prick.

I don't trust anything Labour says.
This is an insane take tbh. Poll well with the left.....for what reason - he was already leader, no election etc.
 
The PM is clearly a twat. Couldn't care less what happens to him.

But I am struggling to see what this "transgender comment" is that people are getting angry about. I've read two different articles and neither explains what he actually said and in what context, they just claim he made a comment regarding transgender people.. any context?
The mother of a murdered trans teen was in parliament on a visit and Sunak decided it would be a great time to use his line about u turns, including one on the subject of trans people

It was crass and insensitive. He could have just used all the other U turn jibes at Starmer but he used that because he's a robot etc.

 
This is an insane take tbh. Poll well with the left.....for what reason - he was already leader, no election etc.

The party's moved from left to right leaning. He still wants the left voting for him and he knows he'll get a decent chunk from the ideology of "never voting Tory", but at the same time it's not like they can completely abandon the left as they still need their/our votes.

All of Labours decisions lately has been trying to attract disillusioned right voters to abandon the Tories and vote Labour. But they still have to keep the left semi sweet.

It's politics in a nut shell.
 
Guess what Ed Milliband has just said on channel 4 news.
He has actually just said that with the reduced Green Pledge committment (down from £28bn in each and every year down to £5bn) Britain will be... LEADING THE WORLD on green environmental opportunities.
 
So, for those yelling to the hills about Labour’u-turn’ on the £28bn Green Plan, would you have preferred them to have “stolen” your vote only to water it down once in power?
 
So, for those yelling to the hills about Labour’u-turn’ on the £28bn Green Plan, would you have preferred them to have “stolen” your vote only to water it down once in power?

No, but we have to take their pledges at face value and if they change their policy we can criticise them for the new pledge if we don't think it goes far enough. It also makes them meaningless and leads to people wondering what they will stick to if voted in.
 
Guess what Ed Milliband has just said on channel 4 news.
He has actually just said that with the reduced Green Pledge committment (down from £28bn in each and every year down to £5bn) Britain will be... LEADING THE WORLD on green environmental opportunities.

It appeals to the Daily Mail and Express readers to be world bleating.

Starmer has said the UK will have the most sustainable growth in the G7 - nobody has any idea how this will happen though.

All a pack of lies.
 
No, but we have to take their pledges at face value and if they change their policy we can criticise them for the new pledge if we don't think it goes far enough. It also makes them meaningless and leads to people wondering what they will stick to if voted in.

So you’d rather an incoming government pay no attention whatsoever to economic changes and stick to a pledge ‘just because’?
 
You really think this policy will see the light of day. The nativity is great, perhaps you understand less about politics than everything else.

Magic infrastructure funding is amazing and naturally won't end up like HS2 or Hinckley or that new/dead Berlin airport.

It's not a silver bullet.

HS2 made some cnuts a lot of money, it just can't possibly pay back since they're not going to actually build it. That's exactly what I mean about robbing fecking Tory thieves being the only people who could make such spending a bad idea. Standard government incompetence like the Cambridge guided busway or Millennium Dome have easily paid themselves back through the economy as a whole and many times over at that.

And that's leaving aside that green investment includes things like training ordinary people how to install and maintain EV chargers, home insulation, heat pumps. It's the kind of thing that will pay back far better still even than a big, badly run but not Tory badly run government infrastructure project.
 
So you’d rather an incoming government pay no attention whatsoever to economic changes and stick to a pledge ‘just because’?
3 days from The Guardian

Keir Starmer has said Labour’s policy pledge to spend £28bn a year on green investment is “desperately needed,” as he re-opened an issue that has become a source of tension in the party.
 
So you’d rather an incoming government pay no attention whatsoever to economic changes and stick to a pledge ‘just because’?

That's not what I said, but it does mean we can criticise it if we don't like the new one. As others have said, and I agree with, the green economy is probably the best investment a country can make at the moment. Creating a green national energy company that would be worth billions in the future has been an open goal that we've missed for a decade now. That's excluding the fact it should be the biggest priority anyway and that Labour were still saying it was necessary as recently as last week.

The fact that they're blaming economic conditions because they made the pledge so long ago just says to me that they shouldn't have promised it at the time. They should have been less specific and stated the amount as a manifesto promise around now.
 
There’s a certain type of labour supporter who just wants a labour government regardless of policy.

They don’t see austerity or no action on climate change as essentially bad things but rather it’s bad because the tories are doing it. Explains how someone can go from wanting to end austerity in 2015 to now arguing for David Cameron policy platform in 2024.

Very strange world.
 
There’s a certain type of labour supporter who just wants a labour government regardless of policy.

They don’t see austerity or no action on climate change as essentially bad things but rather it’s bad because the tories are doing it. Explains how someone can go from wanting to end austerity in 2015 to now arguing for David Cameron policy platform in 2024.

Very strange world.

Agreed, I think there's labour supporters who will only vote for labour and don't look at the policies of other parties.

How many people have read the Green manifesto in detail for example? In my opinion they're more likely to interest the old just left-of-centre labour supporters than the current version of labour.
 
So, for those yelling to the hills about Labour’u-turn’ on the £28bn Green Plan, would you have preferred them to have “stolen” your vote only to water it down once in power?

Reneging on stated policies before they're in government doesn't mean they're not going to renege on whatever policies they have going into government.

The biggest issue is that Labour are not proposing anything remotely different, seemingly only the same just with more competence and less corruption.
 
So, for those yelling to the hills about Labour’u-turn’ on the £28bn Green Plan, would you have preferred them to have “stolen” your vote only to water it down once in power?

This wasn't just a standard commitment Labour had made.
It was their flagship pledge to the country. A pledge to differentiate Labour from the Tories.

Ok. I am not naive enough to believe everything a political party says. Far from it.
But Starmer and Reeves and Milliband had repeatedly stressed their commitment to deliver this because of its importance to the country.
 
Agreed, I think there's labour supporters who will only vote for labour and don't look at the policies of other parties.

How many people have read the Green manifesto in detail for example? In my opinion they're more likely to interest the old just left-of-centre labour supporters than the current version of labour.
It will be interesting to see what The Green climate policy will be now after labour backtracking.

I struggle to see how some can go from the Corbyn where austerity was seen as

1. Moral Failing - The weakest in society(mostly disabled people)are punished

2. Class War - Working class people paying for the failures of the rich. Social services cuts instead of increasing taxes in the rich

3. Failed policy - Austerity never works and doesn’t bring about growth.

To now lapping up and defending austerity.

And tbh there are many problems with the social democratic borrowing policy but it isn’t that the Tories have “maxed out credit cards”.
 
There’s a certain type of labour supporter who just wants a labour government regardless of policy.

They don’t see austerity or no action on climate change as essentially bad things but rather it’s bad because the tories are doing it. Explains how someone can go from wanting to end austerity in 2015 to now arguing for David Cameron policy platform in 2024.

Very strange world.

It’s difficult though because as bad as the labour policies are, the conservatives are much worse and a vote for anyone but labour feels like a waste
 
It will be interesting to see what The Green climate policy will be now after labour backtracking.

I struggle to see how some can go from the Corbyn where austerity was seen as

1. Moral Failing - The weakest in society(mostly disabled people)are punished

2. Class War - Working class people paying for the failures of the rich. Social services cuts instead of increasing taxes in the rich

3. Failed policy - Austerity never works and doesn’t bring about growth.

To now lapping up and defending austerity.

And tbh there are many problems with the social democratic borrowing policy but it isn’t that the Tories have “maxed out credit cards”.

The Greens lost an employment tribunal bought by Shahrar Ali, who was removed as a spokesperson for his 'gender critical' views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071.

Expect them to become a more hostile space for the trans community going forward.

At the moment I am just not going to vote.
 
So, for those yelling to the hills about Labour’u-turn’ on the £28bn Green Plan, would you have preferred them to have “stolen” your vote only to water it down once in power?
They could start with earning my vote first. They've so far offered nothing beyond "We're not the Tories", all while trying to out Tory the Tories on a number of soundbite issues like immigration, spending and defence of Israel's war crimes. With all their rolled back pledges I struggle to see what alternative they offer to the status quo.
 
Agreed, I think there's labour supporters who will only vote for labour and don't look at the policies of other parties.

How many people have read the Green manifesto in detail for example? In my opinion they're more likely to interest the old just left-of-centre labour supporters than the current version of labour.

Well the unfortunate reality of our political system is that only two Parties have a shot of forming a government. We can wish for PR until we’re blue in the face but the reality is the Green Party can essentially put whatever it wants in its Manifesto, because it’ll never have to act on it.

As much as I pray for a green revolution and for Capitalism to collapse, the Greens have only ever had 1 MP. So I can vote with my philosophical heart and go Green, and watch as Sunak sneaks back to No10 for 5 more years of Rwanda, Culture Wars, crumbling schools, public sector strikes, child poverty increases, rise in food & warm banks…

Or I can vote for the only other Party with a viable chance of taking power, with the knowledge that efforts will be made to improve things. Even is that is only minute, it simply HAS to be better than what we have now!

Then we can start putting pressure on Labour to do things, when they’re actually in power and CAN do things.
 
They could start with earning my vote first. They've so far offered nothing beyond "We're not the Tories", all while trying to out Tory the Tories on a number of soundbite issues like immigration, spending and defence of Israel's war crimes.

So things like improving children’s dental health, ensuring all kids have a FSM option, that mental health hubs will be set up to try to limit gang violence and knife crime (just three off the top of my head) don’t separate them from the Tories?