news & politics:discussion

[cellar]

32 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

To some extent that's what's we need, esp in the case of renewable technology and energy saving.

Completely agree with that actually

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

That's only 6 years away.

I might start marinading my hat, it should be good to eat by then.

Full disclosure - I don't count nuclear as "clean"

It is an ambitious policy, something I’d have thought you would be calling for. 

[Skip997]

Just now, Ozanne said:

It is an ambitious policy, something I’d have thought you would be calling for. 

Yea I'm totally in favour.

I just don't think they've got "a hope in hell" of getting anywhere near in only 6 years.

But of course they should try.

Wondering if that includes transport, the trickiest energy nut to crack. Getting planes/HGV's/Ships to run on electric ain't feasible and biofuels are not generally a good thing environmentally.

[lost]

 

57 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

You have to remember Starmer could walk into parliament Square and gun down a school party and Ozanne will defend his actions 😃

Whats the book where the corrupt racist cops in the deep south bible belt are actually communists? In that people are so put off by their stupid views they immediately adobt the opposite ones. I get that alot from Ozanne i think he's secretly a Tory 😄

[lazyred]

39 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It doesn’t that Labour are briefing anything, just talk about fiscal rules after the budget. Labour will set their own budget and use their own fiscal rules. Come on now, this is basic politics. 

Laburs currents fiscal rules are to

close the deficit on day to day spending

govt debt to be falling after 5 years (I assume as a proportion of GDP)

borrow to invest

On tax they will accept the recent NI cut and any income tax cut in march. They have ruled out new wealth taxes. Ending nom doms and vat on provate schoold won't raise much. There is also a windfall tax on energy, making tech companies pay a fair share and clamping down on tax evasion - the stuff every govt says and never happens.

The green plan comes under borrowing to invest. There are still limits, the bond markets will extract a price if borrowing goes too high so 28 bn extra means there is little left for NHS, social care, councils etc. The other problem is they need any investments or other reforms to generate extra growth after 5 years so debt is falling

It all points to scaling back the green plan as is beong briefed.

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by lazyred

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Yea I'm totally in favour.

I just don't think they've got "a hope in hell" of getting anywhere near in only 6 years.

But of course they should try.

Wondering if that includes transport, the trickiest energy nut to crack. Getting planes/HGV's/Ships to run on electric ain't feasible and biofuels are not generally a good thing environmentally.

As you say they should definitely try and even if they fail but get 50% closer then we are in a much better position than we are now.

2 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Laburs currents fiscal rules are to

close the deficit on day to day spending

govt debt to be falling after 5 years (I assume as a proportion of GDP)

borrow to invest

On tax they will accept the recent NI cut and any income tax cut in march. They have ruled out new wealth taxes. Ending nom doms and vat on provate schoold won't raise much. There is also a windfall tax on energy, making tech companies pay a fair share and clamping down on tax evasion - the stuuf every govt says and never happens.

The green plan comes under borrowing to invest. There are still limits, the bond markets will extract a price if borrowing goes too high so 28 bn extra means there is little left for NHS, social care, councils etc. The other problem is they need any investments or other reforms to generate extra growth after 5 years so debt of falling

It all points to scaling back the green plan as is beong briefed.

 

 

 

That’s their fiscal rules now as they try that very delicate act of carry the vase across the room. The policy is a flagship one that is popular as Labour have already said they will borrow to part fund it so I would imagine that come a Labour budget they will find ways to get the funding for the plan as is needed in year 1 and to ensure they reach the target by 2030. At this moment in time the plan isn’t being scaled back.

A Labour opposition might say now that they will stick to Tory spending rules but when in government I doubt very much they will. 

[Justiceforcedave]

I look forward to PMQs (and political campaigns) when we finally get the live AI fact-checking bots.

[steviewevie]

what would need to be done by 2030 to meet this clean energy target is huge, massive...so are labour going to do this as well as sort out straining public services and stick to their fiscal rules? I'll believe it when I see it. Plus, 2nd half of this decade is going world war 3.

[Justiceforcedave]

59 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Just because the £28b isn’t being spent straight away doesn’t mean it’s being scaled back. Under Labours plan the U.K. will still solely use clean energy by 2030. That’s the goal of the policy amongst other things. Don’t get suckered in by the Tory supporters who don’t like that we are moving away from fossil fuels.

If we get to clean energy by 2030, that's great and a massive achievement for Labour! But unless they spend £28bn a year, every year to 2030... then yes, they've climbed back on a pledge. That's a fact.
 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

If we get to clean energy by 2030, that's great and a massive achievement for Labour! But unless they spend £28bn a year, every year to 2030... then yes, they've climbed back on a pledge. That's a fact.
 

The ultimate aim of the policy is get to clean energy by 2030 and to do that they will spend £28b whether that’s done straight away or by scaled up over the Parliament isn’t climbing down on a pledge at all. It seems some are just trying to find things to have a go at Labour.

[Skip997]

Hold on we "only" need 28 billion.

No problem, the "defense" budget is around 50 billion per year. Use soldiers to upgrade the national grid and build infrastructure - give them something useful to do.

Problem solved.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Hold on we "only" need 28 billion.

No problem, the "defense" budget is around 50 billion per year. Use soldiers to upgrade the national grid and build infrastructure - give them something useful to do.

Problem solved.

Just get rid of trident to fund it, if we are doing wishful thinking. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Hold on we "only" need 28 billion.

No problem, the "defense" budget is around 50 billion per year. Use soldiers to upgrade the national grid and build infrastructure - give them something useful to do.

Problem solved.

going to have to increase that when Trump gets in, pulls US out of NATO and after taking Ukraine Russia starts on the Baltics and Poland.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Just get rid of trident to fund it, if we are doing wishful thinking. 

Maybe "wishful", but if anyone is genuinely interested in a better and more livable in world, then a totally sensible suggestion.

However, it seems the human race has a collective subconscious death wish. 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Yea I'm totally in favour.

I just don't think they've got "a hope in hell" of getting anywhere near in only 6 years.

But of course they should try.

Wondering if that includes transport, the trickiest energy nut to crack. Getting planes/HGV's/Ships to run on electric ain't feasible and biofuels are not generally a good thing environmentally.

it won't include flights/ships, I mean come on...it will be the grid, and cars I guess. Still a massive task....and very unlikely in that it takes us decades to build anything (crossrail, HS2 etc).

[lazyred]

45 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

A Labour opposition might say now that they will stick to Tory spending rules but when in government I doubt very much they will. 

People said the same about the Blair Govt but they stuck to the inherited plans and cut benefits in the first year. Govt spending as a proportion of GDP was much lower then than now. Its now at the same level as after the financial crash.

You don't seem to appreciate how bad govt finances are compared to the start of the last labour govt

[steviewevie]

on top of all this Labour are inheriting a massive mess...and the Tories are doing their best to make it even harder for them by cutting taxes. Good chance many will be disappointed in any progress with Labour in power, especially for the first few years.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, lazyred said:

People said the same about the Blair Govt but they stuck to the inherited plans and cut benefits in the first year. Govt spending as a proportion of GDP was much lower then than now. Its now at the same level as after the financial crash.

You don't seem to appreciate how bad govt finances are compared to the start of the last labour govt

and the Blair govt inherited a fairly healthy economy and that allowed Labour to spend big without any major tax increases...this time Labour will be inheriting a big pile of poo.

Edited January 10 by steviewevie

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, lazyred said:

People said the same about the Blair Govt but they stuck to the inherited plans and cut benefits in the first year. Govt spending as a proportion of GDP was much lower then than now. Its now at the same level as after the financial crash.

You don't seem to appreciate how bad govt finances are compared to the start of the last labour govt

In the first year they did but they soon changed tact after saying they would stick to Tory spending plans. I suspect Starmer’s government would do something similar.

Government finances are bad and that’s why Labour are saying they can’t spend £28b straight away.

[Justiceforcedave]

40 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The ultimate aim of the policy is get to clean energy by 2030 and to do that they will spend £28b whether that’s done straight away or by scaled up over the Parliament isn’t climbing down on a pledge at all. It seems some are just trying to find things to have a go at Labour.

The pledge was to spend 28b every year starting as soon as Labour got into government:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/labour-promises-spend-28bn-year-tackling-climate-crisis

"Reeves, the shadow chancellor who has stressed the party’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, told Labour’s conference in Brighton she would be “the first green chancellor” and that the costs of climate change would be greater if the government did not invest now.

The party is pledging an additional £28bn of green capital investment a year until 2030 – equivalent to more than half the current defence budget. Under Labour, Reeves said, there would “no dither, no delay” in tackling the crisis."

Rachel Reeves herself stated that it was important for the money to be invested sooner rather than later (see comments above). So that the UK can begin benefitting and improving imminently. Labour may well end up spending the equivalent of that by 2030, and if they do that it'll be a fantastic achievement... but it's still not what was originally pledged. That is a fact.

It may also be true that the pledge had to change because of factors beyond Labour's control because the Tory government have made a complete sh*t show of the economy. But... the pledge has still changed. That is a fact.

My personal feelings: I understand the climb down, I think it's a bit disappointing but ultimately probably sensible and hopefully Labour will be more careful about overcommitting when it comes to hot topic policy like the environment. I'm not having a go, they still have my support...  I'm just not going to pretend it hasn't happened.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Justiceforcedave said:

The pledge was to spend 28b every year starting as soon as Labour got into government:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/labour-promises-spend-28bn-year-tackling-climate-crisis

"Reeves, the shadow chancellor who has stressed the party’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, told Labour’s conference in Brighton she would be “the first green chancellor” and that the costs of climate change would be greater if the government did not invest now.

The party is pledging an additional £28bn of green capital investment a year until 2030 – equivalent to more than half the current defence budget. Under Labour, Reeves said, there would “no dither, no delay” in tackling the crisis."

Rachel Reeves herself stated that it was important for the money to be invested sooner rather than later (see comments above). So that the UK can begin benefitting and improving imminently. Labour may well end up spending the equivalent of that by 2030, and if they do that it'll be a fantastic achievement... but it's still not what was originally pledged. That is a fact.

It may also be true that the pledge had to change because of factors beyond Labour's control because the Tory government have made a complete sh*t show of the economy. But... the pledge has still changed. That is a fact.

My personal feelings: I understand the climb down, I think it's a bit disappointing but ultimately probably sensible and hopefully Labour will be more careful about overcommitting when it comes to hot topic policy like the environment. I'm not having a go, they still have my support...  I'm just not going to pretend it hasn't happened.

yeah, it has changed. I think some in Labour want to get rid of that number altogether, because the tories are attacking them on it, whereas some want them to stick to it. 

In the end though these are pledges before even election manifestos are written, and then when in govt who actually remembers what was in the manifesto anyway. If things stay sh*t or get worse people will not vote labour after a single term no matter what is being spent on green things.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Justiceforcedave said:

The pledge was to spend 28b every year starting as soon as Labour got into government:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/labour-promises-spend-28bn-year-tackling-climate-crisis

"Reeves, the shadow chancellor who has stressed the party’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, told Labour’s conference in Brighton she would be “the first green chancellor” and that the costs of climate change would be greater if the government did not invest now.

The party is pledging an additional £28bn of green capital investment a year until 2030 – equivalent to more than half the current defence budget. Under Labour, Reeves said, there would “no dither, no delay” in tackling the crisis."

Rachel Reeves herself stated that it was important for the money to be invested sooner rather than later (see comments above). So that the UK can begin benefitting and improving imminently. Labour may well end up spending the equivalent of that by 2030, and if they do that it'll be a fantastic achievement... but it's still not what was originally pledged. That is a fact.

It may also be true that the pledge had to change because of factors beyond Labour's control because the Tory government have made a complete sh*t show of the economy. But... the pledge has still changed. That is a fact.

My personal feelings: I understand the climb down, I think it's a bit disappointing but ultimately probably sensible and hopefully Labour will be more careful about overcommitting when it comes to hot topic policy like the environment. I'm not having a go, they still have my support...  I'm just not going to pretend it hasn't happened.

The end goal of the policy is the same, the scaling of the amount being paid for it has changed. The policy itself remains and hasn’t been ‘watered down’ or ‘scaled back’ or whatever nonsense has been spouted this time round.

For someone that claims to support the policy you have posted a fair amount being critical of it, it doesn’t give off the perception you are that supportive. There is never this level of commentary when the Tories actually row back on green policies. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, it has changed. I think some in Labour want to get rid of that number altogether, because the tories are attacking them on it, whereas some want them to stick to it. 

In the end though these are pledges before even election manifestos are written, and then when in govt who actually remembers what was in the manifesto anyway. If things stay sh*t or get worse people will not vote labour after a single term no matter what is being spent on green things.

If you care more about the figure being spent than the end goal of clean energy then you don’t really support tackling climate change.

[Neil]

9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Because I can't wait to retire 

Don't wish your life away too fast can all change in an instant 

[steviewevie]

Atlee's govt did all these superduper things, but despite all that for most people life was sh*t and they ended up being voted out and tories got in the for the next 13 years or whatever it was.