Westminster Politics

[Spark]

Yes the question is how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure at a time when inflation is an issue and we've seen the impact that a lack of responsibility in budgeting can have on the markets.

Rebalancing the economy to make ourselves more open to trade and making the tax system fairer (more money in lower earners pockets) is a first step unless you want to pass on the cost to working people with inflation or taxes, which basically amounts to the same thing

It's the deliberate mixing of "household finances" and macroeconomics that politicians have deliberately pushed for political reasons that is the issue. No one is denying that you have to have a sensible economic policy - i.e. don't heavily borrow and simultaneously cut taxes like Liz Truss.

But spending £28bn a year on "green" industry a) isn't a lot in the grand scheme of government spending - which currently stands at £1.2tn per year and can certainly be afforded without crashing the economy - and b) is a sound investment not only from the obvious environmental perspective, but also a good start at future proofing our energy sector. Especially as this is an investment back into the economy, e.g. building "gigafactories" that should create a significant number of quality jobs.

The last thing is that this "green pledge" would very likely have included spend that is already planned - e.g. flood defences, or subsidising energy companies to continue transitioning to renewable.

So it's clear to me that cutting this has nothing to do with answering your question on "how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure...", but rather sacrificing a relatively cheap flagship policy that is bound to be unpopular with the courted centre-right+ due to anything "green" being considered ideological. It then allows (in theory) Labour to look economically sound and juxtaposition it with Tory waste and corruption.

It is a sound policy that didn't need ditching.

 

[Smores]

Yes the question is how you fund the borrowing for the expenditure at a time when inflation is an issue and we've seen the impact that a lack of responsibility in budgeting can have on the markets.

Rebalancing the economy to make ourselves more open to trade and making the tax system fairer (more money in lower earners pockets) is a first step unless you want to pass on the cost to working people with inflation or taxes, which basically amounts to the same thing

The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.

 

[The Corinthian]

Usury right?

Yes - interest / usury (I use them interchangeably although they are technically different).

 

[Drainy]

The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.

Talking practically, we don't have wiggle room to implement additional spending without providing justification for how it will be paid back.

Obviously government spending does have a return on investment, in the same way other entities have, but relying on that return to pay for itself is risky and the markets will react. Printing money will add to inflation and raising taxes on working people will both choke the growth off. Taxing the rich is a good idea, but labour have already budgeted for that - I guess they could go harder, I guess, but enjoy the right wing press response to that.

 

[Buster15]

The problem with this analysis is that it's looking at only part of the picture. There's a heavy economic cost to underinvestment and the UK perpetually has the/one of the lowest public investment expenditure in the UK. We're talking about making the situation worse, stalling growth meaning less future income, and missing out on the economic benefits of technology such as green tech which is supposed to be a 10 trillion industry by 2050. Labour here are basically going against the OBR and the Treasury who all have issued reviews coming to the conclusion that the multiplier from green investment is substantial and the cost of stalling is economically destructive.

The answer to that of 'Liz Trus in it' doesn't cut it. The idea that borrowing 28 billion is economically harmful is ridiculous it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't touch inflation (never mind that the type of inflation isn't demand driven anyway). The market would be over the moon with such investment because it helps the economy and moves GDP/Debt in the right direction.

If we're talking politically then sure the electorate are idiots and there's an argument for simplifying commitments to a household budget.

This and the above post by Spark echo my view.
Surely the point is that Labour Green Pledge should have been seen as an investment with associated economic return as opposed to simply government borrowing (which it of course is in its basic form).

Both Reeves and Starmer should have identified the return on capital investment and used that in response to the government.

All the major global economics - China, USA, EU are and have been pouring vast sums of money into the transition to green economic sectors.
Sums that absolutely dwarf the £28bn.
But as always happens, the UK is so obsessed with short term thinking that it completely misses out on the economic benefits of investment in long term beneficial programmes.

All of this goes to show that a Starmer government is not much better than the Tories.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Most people would agree that pretty much everything in the UK is broken and doesn't work effectively.
And all of that is the result of government spending cuts and government lack of investment.
This directly from the Cameron Osborne austerity programme.

This country is desperate for real leadership and direction. And Labour Green Agenda was at least some kind of direction.

The inevitable effects of man made climate change are staring us in the face NOW. And only government leadership and investment is going to get us on the path towards mitigation the worst effects.

So to Sir Kier Starmer, your U Turn is a complete mistake. You can not blame the government. You want to be the next PM.
And if you get a kicking in the forthcoming By Elections, then it is your fault for being so weak and ineffective when the country was looking to you for leadership.

You are right.
£28bn is nowhere near enough in the first place and reducing it to £5bn is criminal.

It's a tiny figure compared to the overall budget - less than 0.5%.

Doesn't matter whether voters are left, right or centre. There's another wave of totally incompetent people on the way to run the country whichever party wins the election.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

This and the above post by Spark echo my view.
Surely the point is that Labour Green Pledge should have been seen as an investment with associated economic return as opposed to simply government borrowing (which it of course is in its basic form).

Both Reeves and Starmer should have identified the return on capital investment and used that in response to the government.

All the major global economics - China, USA, EU are and have been pouring vast sums of money into the transition to green economic sectors.
Sums that absolutely dwarf the £28bn.
But as always happens, the UK is so obsessed with short term thinking that it completely misses out on the economic benefits of investment in long term beneficial programmes.

All of this goes to show that a Starmer government is not much better than the Tories.

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

The Tory vandals have fecked the country, run up debt, deficit, tanked the economy so we can't liberally borrow our way out of the challenges we face, smashed all the institutions that glue the country together, make everything unworkable, and then be brazen enough to confirm they will remove what little financial headroom we have as a nation to literally f*ck Labour coming into power.

They know they're losing power so they want to make it easier for them in opposition so they can waltz back in after four years and continue their little project, destroying this country and getting rich.

They only care about power.

As above.

 

[Pexbo]

When do we revolt?

Tories are already revolting

 

[Smores]

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.

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.

 

[Buster15]

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.

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.

 

[Buster15]

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.

Yes exactly. You have put it much more eloquently than me. But my post above says essentially the same thing.

 

[Buster15]

You are right.
£28bn is nowhere near enough in the first place and reducing it to £5bn is criminal.

It's a tiny figure compared to the overall budget - less than 0.5%.

Doesn't matter whether voters are left, right or centre. There's another wave of totally incompetent people on the way to run the country whichever party wins the election.

Seems like it doesn't it. I must have been naive to think otherwise.

 

[Maticmaker]

It could be politicking before the election, Yes.

We don't know what information/predictions he is being given as to the state of finances though. My concern isn't that he has suddenly changed his mind on climate change, as that seems far fetched to me, the bigger worry is that he knows we just don't have and can't raise the money to do it. Could be he wants to commit to another big promise (lets say on housing for example) and knows it won't be credible with this money assigned to the green deal.

Guess work at the moment.

I agree, I don't blame Starmer for keeping his cards close to his chest at this stage. Labour's biggest asset is they are not Tories, a change is needed, everyone knows it, even I suspect some dyed-in-the wool Tories want some time out of government and the endless bad headlines in order to recuperate; although that just might be wishful thinking on my part.

Labour's worry has to be the size of the majority they might get, just a working majority is not enough to make the big changes needed to give hope to the millions of ordinary folk for the future. Housing is one such area where Labour with a big majority can power through the necessary legislation to change the tide nationwide (forgive the pun). I must admit I have never really been a big supporter of Starmer, but he appears to be handling this preparing for government brief very well, not afraid to 'not answer' when necessary to avoid the political leg-traps set for him; willing to make the right calls, as with the Green budget, but most of all keeping his eye on the prize and his troops in order.

 

[Buster15]

I agree, I don't blame Starmer for keeping his cards close to his chest at this stage. Labour's biggest asset is they are not Tories, a change is needed, everyone knows it, even I suspect some dyed-in-the wool Tories want some time out of government and the endless bad headlines in order to recuperate; although that just might be wishful thinking on my part.

Labour's worry has to be the size of the majority they might get, just a working majority is not enough to make the big changes needed to give hope to the millions of ordinary folk for the future. Housing is one such area where Labour with a big majority can power through the necessary legislation to change the tide nationwide (forgive the pun). I must admit I have never really been a big supporter of Starmer, but he appears to be handling this preparing for government brief very well, not afraid to 'not answer' when necessary to avoid the political leg-traps set for him; willing to make the right calls, as with the Green budget, but most of all keeping his eye on the prize and his troops in order.

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?

 

[rimaldo]

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.

why pay any money now to fix a problem for the future? take all the money now from gas and oil and coal, funnel money into “research papers” from “companies” owned by friends and then when we’re miles behind, tender to someone to come in and fix it, and pick the corporation that promises the biggest under the table kick backs. it’s only tax payer money. we can’t be trusted to spend it wisely. we’d only waste it.

 

[Maticmaker]

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.

 

[TwoSheds]

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.

 

[Frosty]

When do we revolt?

Only when it is fully funded and costed.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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.

 

[berbatrick]

Only when it is fully funded and costed.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

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.

 

[Spark]

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.

 

[Sweet Square]

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.

 

[Buster15]

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.

 

[711]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I was ok with what you were saying until I was classed as a moaning weirdo.

I don't mean you, I'm just, like most, so angry

 

[Drainy]

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

 

[LawCharltonBest]

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?

 

[Sweet Square]

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/

.

 

[Buster15]

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.

 

[RedSky]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

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.

 

[RedSky]

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.

 

[Buster15]

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.

 

[Jericholyte2]

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?