news & politics:discussion

[fraybentos1]

5 hours ago, Neil said:

could all of that money be effectively spent each year to create worthwhile outcomes?

I've no idea lol it wasn't my policy, it was Labour who came up with it...

It's not up to me to defend it, I (and everyone else) is just pointing out the policy has unequivocally been watered down 

[cellar]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I’m sure that’s not the point with some

You're right, the point is being disappointed with Labours constant backtracking and purpling into Tories

[steviewevie]

 

[Skip997]

Just now, steviewevie said:

 

Am liking the +9 for the Greens

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Am liking the +9 for the Greens

A lot of undecideds.

[steviewevie]

Actually that's misleading, it isn't halved...down 26%(still significant)

 

[steviewevie]

and then..

 

[Neil]

3 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

I've no idea lol it wasn't my policy, it was Labour who came up with it...

It's not up to me to defend it, I (and everyone else) is just pointing out the policy has unequivocally been watered down 

there's not a bottomless pit of resources to fix all issues, people expect a lot from a labour govt - but a lot of green spending won't do it.

perhaps investing in future obesity is the way to go with free transport for kids.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Neil said:

there's not a bottomless pit of resources to fix all issues, people expect a lot from a labour govt - but a lot of green spending won't do it.

perhaps investing in future obesity is the way to go with free transport for kids.

People expect Labour to reverse all Tory policies they don’t like whilst also putting in place their ideal policies. I reckon some people hold Labour to impossibly high standard so they can criticise them when they don’t achieve that.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

People expect Labour to reverse all Tory policies they don’t like whilst also putting in place their ideal policies. I reckon some people hold Labour to impossibly high standard so they can criticise them when they don’t achieve that.

what is achievable is limited by limited resources. labour need to spread it around and people need to accept their pet idea probably won't get funded to perfection, we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of the good.

[fraybentos1]

41 minutes ago, Neil said:

there's not a bottomless pit of resources to fix all issues, people expect a lot from a labour govt - but a lot of green spending won't do it.

again, this was Labour who said this idea and now backtracking on it. It's not like I came up with the 28billion figure

 

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

People expect Labour to reverse all Tory policies they don’t like whilst also putting in place their ideal policies. I reckon some people hold Labour to impossibly high standard so they can criticise them when they don’t achieve that.

the 28 bil is nothing to do with reversing Tory policy. This was a Labour proposal they made a big fuss over and are now watering down massively

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

 their pet idea 

this was no one's idea apart from Labour. They came up with the policy!

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

the 28 bil is nothing to do with reversing Tory policy. This was a Labour proposal they made a big fuss over and are now watering down massively

ask yourself - why is it being watered down?

[Neil]

the people who've supported early retirement for themselves or other people have given themselves later retirement

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/05/uk-state-pension-age-will-soon-need-to-rise-to-71-say-experts

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

this was no one's idea apart from Labour. They came up with the policy!

green policies is the pet idea of loads of people.

[steviewevie]

The thing with the 28bn green investment pledge is they need to settle on a policy and stick to it because it's a mess at moment. First it was 28bn right from the start, then 28bn by end, then actually turned out to be 20bn new money, then it was only if meets fiscal rules...now they just don't want to talk about cost at all and focus on outcomes.  They're obviously divided on it, Reeves and co on one side, Miliband and co on the other, Starmer floating about and maybe being more pro 28bn than Reeves..but here looks like Reeves has won out and no one will ever mention 28bn ever again (maybe Starmer vs Reeves will be the next Blair vs Brown?). Anyway, they need to sort out what they're going to say when people ask about costs which they will, because saying we'd really like to spend 28bn but probably won't be able to might not wash.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

only if meets fiscal rules

if it doesn't labour do a liz truss, can't buck the markets.

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

we'd really like to spend 28bn

probably - but not just on green stuff there's other stuff needs fixing.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

if it doesn't labour do a liz truss, can't buck the markets.

the govt set the fiscal rules, they aren't set by OBR or God or something.

[fraybentos1]

19 minutes ago, Neil said:

ask yourself - why is it being watered down?

Well we have a poster in this thread insisting repeatedly that is has not been watered down and that has been a large source of any disagreement here.

But yes glad we can confirm it obviously has been watered down.

Something about fiscal rules I imagine. You could us that to justify cutting anything though. At the end of the day Labour said this is so important we need to spend X on it and now they are backtracking.

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Well we have a poster in this thread insisting repeatedly that is has not been watered down and that has been a large source of any disagreement here.

But yes glad we can confirm it obviously has been watered down.

Something about fiscal rules I imagine. You could us that to justify cutting anything though. At the end of the day Labour said this is so important we need to spend X on it and now they are backtracking.

Fiscal rules are about limited resources. How popular do you think labour would be if they spent loads (everything available for spending)on green but failed to address anything else?

They need to get the right balance and thats hard to do as a prediction cos they can't know what situation they'll inherit.

[Neil]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

the govt set the fiscal rules, they aren't set by OBR or God or something.

They're a consequenceof actual happenings, like a lizz truss budget.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

Fiscal rules are about limited resources. How popular do you think labour would be if they spent loads (everything available for spending)on green but failed to address anything else?

They need to get the right balance and thats hard to do as a prediction cos they can't know what situation they'll inherit.

yes, but this is the green new deal, an industrial strategy to grow the economy. You borrow to invest, and from that investment comes growth. That is the idea anyway.

But, problem is we already have a large debt, nearly 100% of GDP, and the cost of paying back that debt has gone up...so it is a big problem if we don't get any growth, and it is a problem if the fiscal rules restricting everything is to get debt coming down within 5 years (i.e. one term), because that will just make everything a lot harder, especially because, as you say, everything needs money. 

So, looks like Labour's promise to the country will be they really would like to do lots of nice things but can't, sorry.

Of course they could raise loads of money by taxing wealth...

[fraybentos1]

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

Fiscal rules are about limited resources. How popular do you think labour would be if they spent loads (everything available for spending)on green but failed to address anything else?

They need to get the right balance and thats hard to do as a prediction cos they can't know what situation they'll inherit.

Presumably it would come from borrowing and also it isn't throwing money away and lots of jobs would be created too.

Also for a guy with a don't fly avatar on his profile I would have thought this would be a very high priority for you

Also how is 28 billion 'everything available for spending'- the gov spends like a trillion per year 

 

 

[steviewevie]

maybe they think that investing in green stuff might be good to meet our net zero goals and good for the environment and energy security and all that, but in terms of an industrial strategy in growing the economy might not work that well? We've kind of missed the boat? and jobs wise after building all these renewable thingies they don't require the same amount of man power to maintain then as required for extracting fossil fuels?

Edited February 5 by steviewevie