That Starmer fella...

It is odd that there is virtually no limit to the subsidy for continuing employment in arms manufacture, but, when it comes to energy independence the Right claim the Nation cannot afford it.

Yep, and the savings on capital investment overwhelm the spending in just 15 years.

Weirdly transport seems to have the best spend:saving ratio, while electricity doesn’t pay back as much as is spent (although this was done before the price of solar was dropping significantly below forecasts presumed).

(From here: https://twitter.com/JohnSpringford/status/1753730275371036730)

1 Attachment

50% cowardice, 50% ideology. They are piss afraid of sustaining any criticism in the press (even if its criticism they could easily and justifiably push back against). There’s also a fair few “austerity is good and necessary” ideologues in the ranks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto

Oh, just fuck off, John Major.

.

1 Attachment

But why are they doing this?

I guess you either believe they're saying anything to get DM readers on board, and then Starmer will unmask and revel he's been Magic Grandpa all along. Or alternatively, they're an authoritarian, neo-liberal party just saying what they believe in.

Pretty much!

Even in conservative circles though there's a pretty distinct focus on a green transition, at least for their non-headbanger audience in the shires (hence the small hint of tory to green party voting signals in the local elections last year).

I just don't get it, cowardice and ideology aside. It's not as if it's an affront to capital, to their donors in the city, or even the "reasonable" conservative voters they're trying to court.

£28 billion is a fucking tiny amount anyway.

They've lost the plot.

A 'Bombproof' election manifesto, i.e. a blank PDF document

I wasn't aware that the time period for investment return was so short.
If so, why the denial of evidence in the Labour hierarchy? Biden, in the US, has invested hundreds of billions in green tech. The EU has also followed suit. Are they hoping that the private sector will ride to the rescue with suitable financial guarantees? If so, then yet again the taxpayer will be on the hook for 'rent'.

yep. it's utterly depressing

It's a tough one. I believe there are enough decent Labour MPs to exert pressure on the leadership. Will the PLP oust them if they do?

The 28bn wasn't even all public investment was it, the were wrapping up private investment as well which is already happening

All feels so depressing but I can't figure out if this is where our politics has been dragged down to the this form of negative campaigning is what you have to expect. Politicians appear to play to the twitter narratives super strongly despite twitter rhetoric and polling appearing to be miles apart

Doesn't that just show that operational savings will be at the same level as capital expenditure by 2050, so the balance will still be very negative at that point.

[edit]

so - a very different picture, if you look at cumulative budgeted versus cumulative projected savings. Even in 25+ years time, there's a negative balance of almost half a trillion. Not even taking into account the cost of servicing that debt.

That's quite a bit of money.

Public finances are in a perilous state, so I understand why the Labour leadership are reticent to commit to new spending plans, but it's incredibly disappointing that the green energy transition policy is something that they won't commit to ahead of the election. It's absolutely necessary and, I'm convinced, a vote winner.

Where is your forecast from?

The source data of the chart posted earlier.

OK, because on top of that I believe is an additional 3% (net 2.5%) bump to GDP by 2050, that chart doesn't include the macro economic impacts

Doesn't that just show that operational savings will be at the same level as capital expenditure by 2050, so the balance will still be very negative at that point.

Yep, it's also showing both public and private sector investment, so it's not all about Government debt. In any case, I don't think anyone's suggesting that the serious required investment would be paid off within a decade or two, only that it would pay for itself over the medium to long term, alongside hitting broader necessary social goals.

This is really the problem with the current fiscal rules — that they target overall debt and not just the deficit. It necessarily lumps in capital investment with borrowing for operational expenditure, and says it needs to reduce both of these within a 5 year horizon. Any investment that doesn't pay for itself in full within that short period of time is thrown out the window, despite the huge advantage a state has of using a potential investment horizon of centuries.

Equally, it's perfectly within the Government's power to have a monetary and regulatory structure that reduces interest rates for things like green investment, both public and private, making the necessary investments much cheaper to service.

It's certainly not easy in the current political environment, but Labour doubling down on the same old tired lines is getting exhausting to watch.

Yep, that's covered in the full report (here if anyone wants to read it: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/).

Just above the chart it says this:

Modelling commissioned for this report suggests that the level of UK GDP would be around 2% higher than it would have been by 2035 as resources are redirected from fossil fuel imports to UK investment.

And there's a more detailed projection deeper in the 'Macroeconomic impacts' section:

1 Attachment

Sadly, it seems the Labour hierarchy has adopted the mantra of 'Fiscal Responsibility' when it comes to necessary investment. I get the impression that the leadership always seem to be saying 'We would love to do x or y but we don't have the money'. It's not that they don't have the money it's because they don't want to do anything!
Labour want the perks of office, the pensions, cars, being at the centre of events etc but don't actually want to do anything to earn these perks.
Truly, our established parties are stupid and badly in need of a blood transfusion.

While I appreciate that any spending plans by labour will result in Tory attacks of "tax rises, spending all your money" FML they really could find ways to present investment opportunities like the green deal as tax cuts to companies to encourage investment rather than actual government spending (yes 28B is a nothing amount in the general scheme)

Going more and more off labour right now.

I'm in a Tory stronghold so my vote is unlikely to matter but I will tactically vote in hope for a change of government. Even if I'm personally leaning green right now.

Exactly, doesn't say much if you don't think you can deliver an elevator pitch of why its a good idea that doesn't crumple at the first right winger asking how will you pay for it

While I appreciate that any spending plans by labour will result in Tory attacks of "tax rises, spending all your money" FML they really could find ways to present investment opportunities like the green deal as tax cuts to companies to encourage investment rather than actual government spending (yes 28B is a nothing amount in the general scheme)

It is really disappointing. I do get that Labour are being careful. But we're now at that point where people are crying out for a change. If we're not prepared to give it to them then it opens up all kinds of other weird electoral situations.

The time for timidity is past. The brand is detoxified. It is time to start putting some meat on the bones, and we're in the shit - the meat needs to be hefty.

The green new deal is an industrial strategy. If we can't sell that to the British people, we won't deserve a second term.

Exactly. My worry is that without building engagement this is purely a protest vote and we will be back in the same situation with the Tories in 5 years.

There doesn't seem to be an attempt to generate buy in or a relationship built between the labour party and the electorate.

We just get a 1 off transaction.

A thoughtful point.