Labour slammed for ditching climate pledge
JVL Introduction
Yet another of Labour’s pledges has been shredded, this time by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Many ecosocialists have been able to temper their dismay at Labour’s jettisoning of so many promises by saying that at least its £28bn p.a. green spending pledge offered real hope.
No longer.
Taking her stand on the bedrock of the very “fiscal responsibility” which has brought us over a decade of austerity, Reeves has the gall to say this is not a U-turn.
It’s apparently all the Tories’ fault we can’t even begin to put right the problems which the Tories have caused.
This is a conscious choice to say we can’t afford to tackle climate change for now. Can we afford not to?
RK
Addition: Ed Miliband seems to be resisting this development strongly – see postscript below
This article was originally published by the Morning Star on Sat 10 Jun 2023. Read the original here.
Labour slammed for ditching climate pledge
Rachel Reeves backtracks on £28bn ‘green prosperity plan’
LABOUR’S decision to ditch another pledge today by backtracking on a proposed £28 billion “green prosperity plan” has met condemnation from environmental groups.
The party previously claimed that the plan would “transform Britain” and “cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate.”
But shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves today told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “no plan can be built that’s not on a rock of economic and fiscal responsibility.”
She refused to say how much Labour would spend on “green investment” because “who knows what more damage the Conservatives are going to do to our economy?”
She said that when she made the original commitment to spend £28 billion: “The truth is I didn’t foresee what the Conservatives would do to our economy — maybe that was foolish of me.”
Greenpeace slammed the decision to U-turn, with UK head of politics Rebecca Newsom said: “Any U-turn would be a huge mistake.
“Without the necessary immediate investment, we will lose out on the creation of thousands of jobs needed as we phase out fossil fuels, and we will lose out on the opportunity to put green tech industries at the centre of our economy.
“Rachel Reeves rightly cites the opportunities of green growth, but this prevarication on confirming the scale of investment needed from the start of a new Labour government risks throwing in the towel on the global race in green tech, with the US, China and the EU already far ahead.
“It would be simply bad economics to say that we can’t afford this now when it would pay for itself.
“Green infrastructure investment is now one of the best economic growth generators, and with it the opportunity to lower bills and tackle the climate crisis. Labour mustn’t let this go.”
A Momentum spokesperson described the move as “a hugely disappointing step backwards” and a Labour backbencher told the Morning Star that figures on the right were trying to “gut the party of any progressive agenda.”
Former Jeremy Corbyn adviser Andrew Fisher tweeted that “the arguments for this watering down really don’t stack up,” adding: “People can turn on the news and see investment in tackling climate change can’t wait.
“They can look at other countries and see that it isn’t waiting there. And what if another global economic crisis hits in 2024 or 2025? Will it be delayed again?”
The Scottish National Party said Labour’s decision “could have very real and damaging consequences for Scotland’s green energy potential.”
SNP Westminster Leader Stephen Flynn said: “The Tories have trashed the UK economy with Brexit, cuts and their failure to properly invest in renewable energy — but rather than change, the Labour Party is offering more of the same.”
Ms Reeves justified Labour’s dumping of the spending commitment by saying: “I will never be reckless with the public finances,” and “no plan can be built that’s not on a rock of economic and fiscal responsibility.”
She denied that the decision was a U-turn.
Ms Reeves made the pledge to spend £28b a year on green transition at Labour’s annual conference in 2021, declaring that she would be “Britain’s first green chancellor.”
Labour has also abandoned its commitments to abolishing university tuition fees, renationalising public industries including energy and water and introducing progressive taxation.
Postscript:
Some people don’t want Britain to borrow to invest in the green economy. They want us to back down.
But Keir, Rachel and I will never let that happen. Britain needs this £28bn a year plan and that is what we are committed to.
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) June 9, 2023
You cannot trust/believe anything they say.
You know, I quite like Ed. But he’s a bit of a push over as a token “lefty” for centre-right Labour. A few months ago he was tying himself in knots explaining how his sure support for nationalising energy really was intact despite the leadership pretty much killing it off. Now here he is saying Keir and Rachel won’t back down on funding a greener economy, just as Keir and Rachel are backing down. I’m not sure whether I feel sorry for Ed, or just disappointed.
Every day, Starmer’s Labour Party gives us new cause for despair. It seems to have no appetite for bringing to an end the merry dance the Tories have led us in for what feels like an eternity. Instead, it only wants to put its own orchestra in place, even if it means playing the same hackneyed music . If anybody can explain exactly what a future Labour government wants to achieve that would significantly identify it as a government that wants real, effective, constructive change, I’d be pleased to hear what they have to say. Right now, I don’t see it.
Ed Miliband appeared on the Today Programme on the 9th June saying that he fully supported Rachel Reeves’ formulation of Labour Party’s green investment. So the idea above that he is in disagreement with this U-turn is false. He claimed that the finance had to be brought in gradually because it would be impossible to spend in the first year. It is most likely that the Labour Party is watering down its green policies in response to pressure from right wing unions like the GMB. We will have to see if this will affect its backing from Dale VInce (1.5 million in the last decade) who also donates to Just Stop Oil and if the next U-turn will be pulling back from its commitment to end all new Gas and Oil extraction as JSO proposes. It is possible, of course, that Labour will claim that the 130 exploration and extraction licenses for oil and gas, currently being handed out by the Tories, will not count as new if the Labour Party has a majority at the next election.
Ed Milliband doesn’t seem to be using the same hymn sheet as Ms Reeves and the leader, I wonder how long he’s going to last as “Shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero”? Maybe the “zero” refers to the level of investment by a future Labour govt?
At the next General Election I foresee an even larger surge in the Green Party vote than there was at the recent council elections.
I hope Miliband IS resisting. I heard him on the World At One trying desperately to square the circle. I understand. He didnt duck the invite to go on, and then he was trapped by ‘Party discipline’ in what he could say. But it was very sad to listen to.
Not all socialists are eco-socialists. Their concerns about deficiencies in meteorological analyses, about economic errors (e.g. about Stern’s use of a nil – interest rate for project planning), about unintended consequences even if the above criticisms are dismissed – these are not the product of Philip Snowden style ‘fiscal/interest rate prudence.’ Reeves, perhaps unlike Anne-Liese Dodds, does believe in financial orthodoxy.
Thre are some sharp barbs here in Nine questions for Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer including this:
“I will never be reckless with the public finances,” and “no plan can be built that’s not on a rock of economic and fiscal responsibility.”
This is total hypocrisy from Reeves. Just a few weeks ago, she ditched the commitment to equalise the rates for earned and unearned income. The estimated revenue for this is £16 billion per year.
At the same time, big increases in the military budget have also been endorsed despite it already being one of the biggest in the world.
It beats me how anyone can vote Labour while Starmer is in charge of it.
Ed Miliband showed his true colours when after being trashed by MSM during his term of leadership, he failed/refused to see the parallel between him and Corbyn and joined with those in attacking JC. Albeit suffering a much lower level of denigration, not being as big threat to the establishment as JC, he put how he was unjustly treated to one side and joined the KS bandwagon.