[The Weeping Angel]

Meanwhile this has caused much annoyance online


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... um=twitter

The party intends to have both documents ready by mid-March, in case Rishi Sunak calls an early spring poll.

The Observer understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), Labour will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.

Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.

In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.

Labour’s cautious approach – which is frustrating some MPs and party members – is partly the result of uncertainty about the economic situation it will inherit and what can be afforded.

But shadow ministers are also determined to offer as small a target as possible to the Tories on issues such as social care, which in the past have turned election campaigns upside down. In 2010, Labour’s care plans were branded a “death tax” by the Conservatives, and hit the party’s vote badly, while in 2017 Theresa May’s campaign suffered irreparable damage amid accusations she was planning a “dementia tax”.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Seems reasonably sensible if presented adequately. Unlike the £28bn policy and gradual climbdowns. Childcare and planning should be done sooner rather than later to. And a better student finance model.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't really get this point, irrespective of what you think of the Labour strategy.

The Government isn't in a position where it can get away with making obvious shit up.

[kreuzberger]

Lies, worlds, boots, Zinovief letters.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sunak's not very good at it. Nobody believes him when he tells the truth.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Sunak's not very good at it. Nobody believes him when he tells the truth.

When was that?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ha ha.

I was thinking about the general points he made about international conditions on inflation, energy prices etc. He's entitled to make those, but nobody believes him. John Major by contrast did the same and romped home (in vote terms, if not seat terms).

[mattomac]

Labour never committed to scrapping the Lords.

It was an option in Brown’s review to fundamentally change it.

Interesting to the note the Tories don’t attack Labour’s immigration plan, they claim there is no plan.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Labour's 'pledges':

Foundations
•The rock of economic stability
•Strong National Defence
•Secure Borders

Five National Missions
•Get Britain Building Again
•Switch on British Energy
•Get The NHS Back On Its Feet
•Take Back Our Streets
•Break Down Barriers To Opportunity

[davidjay]

Labour's 'pledges':

Foundations
•The rock of economic stability
•Strong National Defence
•Secure Borders

Five National Missions
•Get Britain Building Again
•Switch on British Energy
•Get The NHS Back On Its Feet
•Take Back Our Streets
•Break Down Barriers To Opportunity

Where's the total, unconditional support for Palestine?

[The Weeping Angel]

Well the £28 billion is being ditched

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68232133

Labour is ditching its policy of spending £28bn a year on its green investment plan in a major U-turn.

An official announcement will be made on Thursday.

Sources insist the party's Green Prosperity Plan, which includes creating a publicly-owned green power company, is not being dropped altogether.

But Labour will no longer commit to investing £28bn a year in green energy projects if it wins power.

Labour's position on the policy in recent weeks has been increasingly muddled, with some senior figures repeatedly refusing to use the £28bn figure when pressed in interviews, while others, including party leader Sir Keir Starmer, continued to do so.

It is expected Labour will argue that they have to focus on being seen as responsible stewards of the economy, rather than committing to a spending pledge that opponents regard as reckless.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I expect the other spending shadow ministers have forced this. If the fiscal rule stays, then £28bn for green investment means that none of them can fix anything.

The state wind power company is actually a very sensible hedge- the rate to be paid by providers is basically set by the rate for gas. Would be a shame to see this be cut back. We'll have to see.

[The Weeping Angel]

Hopefully they'll keep that but as James Murray of Business Green points out

[Abernathy]

Frustrating, but it’s that priceless porcelain vase again. Victory at the election is not nailed on, despite the widespread assumption that it is. People would do well to remember the scale of the task that Labour faces. Labour needs an unprecedented swing from the Tories of 12.7% - significantly bigger than the 10.2% swing that delivered the Blair landslide of 1997. This takes into account the re-drawn constituency boundaries.

The point being that the mission to achieve a governing majority at the election is of absolutely critical importance - for the party, to avoid a fifth successive election defeat, but also for the country, and the millions who so desperately need a Labour government and to head off further Tory incompetence and misery. It is quite impossible to overstate the importance of this.

Anything that could conceivably jeopardise the achievement of that mission, in the assessment of Labour’s key strategists, simply must be addressed before the polls open, and preferably well before the campaign proper gets underway.

Yes there will be accusations of flip-flopping, and already we can see the core Tory charge of Labour having “no plan” beginning perhaps to gain some traction. But the 28 billion pound figure was announced by Rachel Reeves three years ago now, and it makes little sense to cling stubbornly to that number, particularly in the face of all that has happened since then : the Truss/Kwarteng debacle for example. Labour’s commitment to investment in green jobs and energy remains intact.

The coming weeks and months will no doubt focus sharply on this issue, as the Tories will (and already have) seize on it as a political club with which to thrash Labour, and it will be a test of Labours comms operations to get the message across that green investment remains core to Labour’s plan for government.

[mattomac]

It was actually part of the atrocious jibe at trans people.

Sunak has something for once and completely fucks it up.

The figure should have been quietly dropped a while back and they should have emphasised as much when Truss crashed the economy.

I think it’s been a colossal fuck up and you now have to hope the comms team shows more quality than it has shown so far on this.

End of the day growth will be delivered by infrastructure and building the economy away from the financial and services market.

It won’t be achieved by tax cuts. Anyhow I’d wait until the manifesto to make any more announcements.

[Youngian]

If an opposition plucks out numbers it’s an unaffordable pledge, if they don’t provide a number for extra spending it’s an uncosted pledge.
A government can just announce and/or provide more spending on nice things as a reward for their stable management of the economy. Being in opposition is shite and those who enjoy it are insufferable twats.
Fortunately for Keir, Barry Gardiner is on R4 Today handing out advice on how not to lose elections.

[Abernathy]

Just heard some dickhead on an LBC phone-in say he thought that Keir Starmer was being "disingenuous".

Surely honestly intimating that the 28m quid a year you thought you'd be able to afford to spend three years ago needs to be re-thought because the Tories in government have trashed the economy is the very opposite of disingenuous ?

See also : "They'll say anything to get elected". Well, surely if that was true, they'd be sticking to the 28m quid figure even if it is no longer affordable - or even saying they'd spend 50m quid a year ?

Jeez - people are such idiots.

[kreuzberger]

Carrying a priceless porcelain vase in to a burning building rather than a fire extinguisher? That's where I do that empty-face gesture with performance exhaling.

One day, he'll put his foot down with a heavy hand. One day...

[Youngian]

It was the media’s choice to prioritise ‘opposition’s spending review u-turn’ as the headline story. Bring it on.

[Abernathy]

Here's the thing. All of Labour's pledges and promises mean absolutely fuck all if Labour doesn't get elected, because then they'll still be able to do precisely nothing. Zilch. Nada.

So revising a three year old estimated price tag on a policy because of violently changed macro-economic circumstances and a desire not to over-promise something that cannot, after all, be delivered should be no big deal. Especially since sticking to the £28m figure was clearly and obviously one of the Tories' key attack lines for this election, that really could be a factor in preventing Labour from winning the election and getting back to government.

But of course, it is being made into a big deal. *In many ways, Labour is hamstrung which ever way it turns. If it sticks to the £28m figure, it is attacked by the Tories for irresponsibly borrowing money that taxpayers will have to repay through increased taxes. If it doesn't, it is excoriated by the Tories as having "no plan" and being terminally untrustworthy and guilty of flip-flopping.

On balance, given the high stakes concerning the absolute imperative of Labour winning this election, I think I'll settle for enduring the latter lie.