Spark
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 2,373
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.