Okay how about the wording used by environmentalists?
The emissions from Rosebank’s operations alone – not counting any emissions from burning the oil and gas it is likely to produce – are likely to reach 5.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to analysis by Uplift of the environmental statements provided by Equinor.
“Ministers also know that approving Rosebank will do nothing to lower UK fuel bills and will do very little for UK energy security as most of these reserves will likely be exported. On every level, including legally, Rosebank fails.”
Even Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow secretary for climate and net zero, is totally against the development of Rosebank. Ed Miliband said:
The evidence is clear: Rosebank will do nothing to cut bills, as the government admit, is no solution to our energy security, and would drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments.”
Obviously Ed Miliband said that a few weeks before Keir Starmer backtracked. Miliband also said:
"the idea that they are about to throw billions at new fossil fuel exploration shows that they will scandalously waste money on climate vandalism"
So he obviously feels very strongly about the issue. Or least he did a few weeks ago.
Miliband can speak for himself…
Yes he can, which is why I provided a link to a Guardian article dated 1st April which quotes him as being extremely opposed to the development of Rosebank. I said:
So he obviously feels very strongly about the issue. Or least he did a few weeks ago.
So you have provided evidence that he has completely backtracked, as expected, and the excuse that he has decided to give for doing so.
Obviously the "billions to oil and gas companies” wasn't an issue at all a few weeks ago when Miliband was talking to the Guardian, and before his boss had backtracked and reassured to the oil company that they could go ahead, otherwise this rather important detail would have been mentioned.
Labour won’t issue licenses. The current government will. Everything else follows from that. A change of government before any more licenses are issued would be great.
He has correctly assumed that you, or at least other pissed-off voters like yourself, won’t be voting Tory.
I wasn't going to vote Tory regardkess of what he says or does, so it's not relevant to me.
That’s not what’s been said, it’s being tapered in over the first few years.
And you believe this because?
I wasn’t going to vote Tory regardkess of what he says or does
Yup, that is what Starmer's strategy is based on - ignore the anti-Tory vote and focus on pleasing Tory voters.
A change of government before any more licenses are issued would be great.
As would not backtracking before even winning an election - politicians generally wait until they have actually won an election before going back on their promises.
"This will not stop drilling on projects that have already been approved, with the exception of the Rosebank and Cambo schemes, which Labour has said previously it would block."
Yup, that is what Starmer’s strategy is based on – ignore the anti-Tory vote and focus on pleasing Tory voters.
Seems to be working. It is assuming that the anti-Tory vote will still vote Labour though and I suppose the majority will as who else are they going to vote for - even more tory like Lib Dems or those losers the Green Party?
Seems to be working.
Only through the blind luck of having the most clueless and incompetent tory govt in history. I get the strategy, and I could accept it if someone could persuade me that Starmer is more progressive and radical than he appears. But let’s be honest with ourselves, he’s not is he?
Also whilst any doubts I had about Corbyn were mitigated by him having McDonnell behind him, with Starmer it’s the opposite. Rachel Reeves is the most rightwing, establishment supporting, unambitious and out of touch shadow chancellor I have ever seen. She will be a disaster. The only hope for a new labour govt is that she somehow screws up and Starmer replaces her.
- A Labour government won’t grant any more licenses
- A Tory government will grant more licenses
- We have a Tory government, so new licenses likely this year
- Labour won’t take away licenses already issued, for reasons gone over already
If you want a stop to new licenses being issued, get the Tories out.
he’s not is he?
No, he isn’t. There won’t be a bait’n’switch… Labour won’t suddenly be revolutionary if they win. It’ll all be very boring for those that want fast results rather than a shift in direction and the long hard graft needed to turn this country around.
were mitigated by him having McDonnell behind him
It’s a real shame McDonnell wasn’t prepared to take over as leader after the 2017 defeat. Understandable that he didn’t, it’s a job that crushes you from all sides, but a shame for the country as a whole.
Even as a Londoner (originally) I can't stand the way she speaks, hectoring and infantilising. You really wouldn't want to be stuck with her getting your ears pianoed at Murdoch's summer party for very long.
'hard graft needed' sounds like LP austerity. Marr said the LP's plans for the economy were little different from the Tories but it will 'feel' different because of the working class background (sic) of the LP front bench.
rather than a shift in direction and the long hard graft needed to turn this country around.
Sounds a bit brexiteer "just wait and it will be fine".
The problem with this "long graft" approach is then the tories get back in and bin off the window dressing good stuff and double down on the stuff which has been normalised.
If you want to undo the damage then you have to be radical to get the changes embedded. The obvious one being electoral reform. Get that done and lower the chances of the tories screwing us in future.
‘hard graft needed’ sounds like LP austerity.
Seems like they haven't learned the lesson of the first Cameron govt. Do the hard stuff first, and do it fast because you won't get the chance later. Instead they're going to spend 4 years telling the country they can't afford to do anything (not even free school meals FFS!) and then they'll get kicked out by a resurgent tory party ready to finish the job they started in 2016. It's all so bloody predictable.
If you want to undo the damage then you have to be radical to get the changes embedded. The obvious one being electoral reform. Get that done and lower the chances of the tories screwing us in future.
Yep, Starmer has lucked into leading in the polls and once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff. The media would scream "That wasn't in the manifesto" but so what if the voters actually see change for the better. They may even vote them in again rather than more likely giving them a chance, not seeing any difference so voting tory again.
They will have served their purpose.
Yep, Starmer has lucked into leading in the polls and once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff.
He could but the evidence for this is rather slim. The only thing he has seemed enthusiastic about is cracking down on anyone vaguely leftwing.
Plus it would be rather undesirable in terms of embedding the "they are all liars" further.
Starmer's plan is a complete con. He is literally clueless about how the economy works and Rachel Reeves is not much better. The missions are meaningless because in the main they can't be delivered and assume capabilities and conditions that don't exist and can't be created quickly. e.g.
Green & Digital Future
Promise: Invest £28B public capital into the green economy.
Reality: Reeves has already backtracked on the promise - it's now something that "may"chappen towards the end of the next parliament "if" the fiscal conditions allow. The return on the £28B investment isn't stated (if there's no net return it's a bad investment) and it's not clear if there's even £28B of investable opportunities without creating hyper inflation in green tech and over paying in the process. It's also not stated what the investment targets are.
Promise: Support the creation of over a million good jobs for people of all regions, ages, genders and socioeconomic groups
Reality: There's no detail on what a good Green job is or any proof that 1m jobs can be created in any realistic time period - let alone ones that make a net contribution to the running of the state. The policy also ignores that a rapid pivot to green by restricting local gas and oil devt. in favour of importing more of it will definitely result in the loss of tens of thousands of well paying (net tax payer) jobs in the oil / gas supply chains - and a huge knock on in the wider economy due to the associated loss of engineering skills. Most wind turbines construction is actually assembly - with high value parts made off shore and imported.
Promise: Cut energy bills for good, saving each UK household hundreds of pounds a year
Reality: A decline in global gas / oil prices is one of the scenarios energy analysts are looking at. So by fixating on a rapid transition to net zero, consumers may actually land up paying more (either to energy Co's or in tax to fund the rapid pivot to green tech) than they would have done.
Promise: Deliver clean electricity by 2030
Reality: There's still no commercially viable scale storage tech for renewables. So for electricity to be "clean" by 2030 we need a complete switch to renewables, the invention of storage tech that doesn't exist yet, scaling that tech / commercialising it and then deploying it right across the national grid. Likely many tens of thousands of new bits of storage infrastructure to be designed, built and which will require planning permission before it can be installed. All in 5 years.
Most people whose main experience is outside politics can see Starmer's missions for what they are - cynical cons designed to fool people and assembled by people who have zero experience of delivering anything.
For balance, Blair's big pitch in 1997 was actually grounded in some sense of reality - the policy elements had been thought through and the implementation was feasible, even if in the end a lot of it failed to meet the original policy objective or cost a lot more than originally stated.
A Labour government won’t grant any more licenses
– A Tory government will grant more licenses
– We have a Tory government, so new licenses likely this year
– Labour won’t take away licenses already issued, for reasons gone over alreadyIf you want a stop to new licenses being issued, get the Tories out.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if whatever Starmer says now, and whatever pledges he makes, won't change.
Where is the evidence for that? Starmer has already backtracked on every pledge he made to become leader and now he is backtracking on his more recent pledges, including his £28 billion green pledge and his pledge to block Rosebank.
No one expects the opposition to break their promises before they even get into government but Starmer has managed to do that. I guess it is a reflection of how confident he is on winning the next general election - he is already beginning to behave as if he has won.
To suggest that whatever Starmer says is set in stone is as daft as Ed Miliband's infamous "Ed Stones"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-stone-election-pledges-b2088683.html
To your credit Kelvin you have remained composed about all of this, and all of the u-turns.
I don't know why you don't carry a similar cynicism as a few of us do about Labour but fair play to you - I've not even had the faith with Starmer from the begining. It's panned out worse than I expected in terms of hope.
Also - speaking to a few people they've fallen out with politics generally as they don't believe there is a positive outcome - that sits squarely at Starmer's door as he's simply not wielded anti-Tory sentiment into something better.
To your credit ....
I am not sure why anyone should deserve credit for being in denial of Starmer's dishonesty and ever growing list of u-turns and backtracking.
Yet another dishonest and untrustworthy Prime Minister is not what the British people need.
I am not sure why anyone should deserve credit for being in denial of Starmer’s dishonesty and ever growing list of u-turns and backtracking.
I mean he hasn't resorted to screeching or attacking the Starmer thread that's all.
once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff. The media would scream “That wasn’t in the manifesto” but so what
There is 0% chance Starmer is going to rip the mask off and reveal he is the reincarnation of Nye Bevan once he crosses the threshold of No.10. It's not in his character or ideology.
To pursue a platform that is totally different from the election manifesto would eat away at a constitutional principle, undermine public trust and precipitate another civil war in Labour.
The cynicism is baked in Rone. Getting a government with a full policy platform and appetite for change that matches my own ideals isn't possible in the UK. I feel I finally have an understanding of where England sits politically... and it's not 100% aligned with me, to put it mildly. But neither is it with this current government, and the damage they wreak. I campaigned and voted against New Labour at every opportunity. Against Blair, against Brown, against Miliband... the result of me and millions of others doing that, and the Tories winning power on the back of that split in the opposition to them, is a wrecked NHS, wrecked education system, relatively poorer workers, more in work poverty, neutered unions, poor trading conditions for SMEs, worsening environmental conditions, empowering of and enrichment of fossil fuel companies at the expense of both localised and global pollution... on and on it goes. I accept my responsibility in that for my past wasted votes. I'm not doing it again in a Tory/Labour marginal, because Labour isn't a left wing as I'd like. Play politics like a game with no consequences if you want, but I'll be voting with the aim to change who is our MP, and hopefully who is in government. I, and many others, will also be a talking to that candidate directly to make it clear when and where they fall short, if/once elected.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1674021034599538689?s=20
And again.
@Kelvin I see where you're coming from. But there is lots of blind faith involved in what Labour may or may not do.
Just being 'Labour' in name is not good enough for me currently.
I have one bunch of scumbags that won't build on the green belt and one bunch of scumbags that can't wait to build on it.
Think I'll vote green.
Just being ‘Labour’ in name is not good enough for me currently.
Nor me. I never used to vote for them, remember. It's not the label, it's the chance to change things. We're in a right mess right now, to put it mildly, and most of that mess is in my opinion down to political choices made in the UK, even if it is hard to discern that through the noise of Covid and Russia. We need to try a change of government ASAP.
The current Labour policy platform (see the link I posted on the previous page for what I think that may be come an election, although we're not there yet) is a far better match to my own hopes than what the Conservatives are offering. It also isn't scaring off voters up here that need to vote Labour (even if it wouldn't be their first choice vote under a different system) for there to be any chance of any change to happen.
Who knows were I'd be if in a different seat. I think that in a LibDem/Tory marginal seat I'd vote LibDem, but their own policy offering isn't exactly complete at this point. I've asked myself what I'd do in a LibDem/Labour marginal... and I think the answer is vote Labour. I asked myself that question before joining the Labour party. The Green party? How many parliamentary seats is a vote for them the best move in terms of who is returned to parliament... 4 or 5? More than 1 MP would be a great result for them at the next election, and I want more Green MPs, but they won't be forming the next government... and if their vote share ends up being higher in enough seats where they are only ever coming third... well, we know where that might leave us... still right here... digging deeper into the shit of the last decade.
I understand the "none of the above" sentiment of many who feel let down by politics as a whole. And some of the votes for smaller parties are as much about that, or single issue awareness and exposure raising, as they are about those parties having a clear platform for government. That's all fine. But who becomes your MP, and who then goes to make up the government, really does matter beyond all that.
I understand the “none of the above” sentiment of many who feel let down by politics as a whole.
Our local labour candidate is on one of my cycling whatsapp groups so that's good enough for me. 😀
Getting a government with a full policy platform and appetite for change that matches my own ideals isn’t possible in the UK. I feel I finally have an understanding of where England sits politically… and it’s not 100% aligned with me, to put it mildly.
I have felt that for a long time. I vote Green because they would be my preference but it doesn't make any difference who I vote for where I live. If there was even a slim chance of someone beating the tory MP I would vote for them as other than something like Reform, I can't imagine a worse government than the tory government.
Yeah, those are some very low expectations.
Anyway water companies all looking shaky now. Mass bail outs or nationalisation on the cards.
We're at the tip of the abyss.
My water is nearly 800 and they want to consider 40%. Thames Water looking shaky.
Like the Carpenters sang - "we've only just begun."
Or the government could simply pay the bill.
I think it's a bit of a mis-read that just because Corbyn couldn't get left-wing ideals through - that it won't happen in the future.
Things will go so far downhill that it will be the only way to correct it - eventually as money dries up.
Well, that's something to look forward to... wait for everything to get worse and worse and then those pesky voters will have to agree with us. Jolly good. Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the "answers". Great.
Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the “answers”. Great.
It might after all thats what happened last time we had the lets be slightly less tory than the tories approach.
Lets just take the water screwup. What did new labour do about that?
Its simple enough if Starmer wants votes he needs to earn them. I mean even his most adoring fans sort of get this when they go on about appealing to the tories and the red wallers.
Well, that’s something to look forward to… wait for everything to get worse and worse and then those pesky voters will have to agree with us. Jolly good. Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the “answers”. Great.
Not because the voters will agree with anyone but because they will need solutions.
By your own logic Starmer has had to turn right to gain popularity - and we have two right leaning options. How is that a solution? I can't pick the crumbs out of it.
I believe a leader should make a strong argument for pushing back against the Tories/RW policy and demonstrate how it will be done as opposed to just leaning right.
Starmer hasn't even attempted the former.
So I'm never going agree with this path. It's just heading towards constantly losing touch with policies that will make a real difference.
Clear as day.
It's really hard to keep up with Labour scrapping pledges at the moment.
This is what I genuinely don't understand....why all this backtracking and u-turns?
With a 23% lead in the polls and no signs that the internal crises in their two main rivals, the Tories and the SNP, are abating, Labour doesn't need to go into panic mode and start ditching the few fairly radical policies that they actually have.
It is frankly impossible for Labour to significantly increase their lead anymore than it is at the present. So why are they trying to appease Tory voters even more?
I can only think that it is either total confidence that they will win the next general election, and therefore it is simply unnecessary to convince voters that they will be radically different to the Tories.
And/or, they never had any intention in to implement their more radical policies in the first place so now confident that they will win the next general election they can start managing expectations in preparation for the disappointment that is surely bound to come.
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1673312994690838535
This is what I genuinely don’t understand….why all this backtracking and u-turns
Me too. It's not a good look.
It is frankly impossible for Labour to significantly increase their lead anymore than it is at the present. So why are they trying to appease Tory voters even more
Because they're not a progressive party any longer.
It's just degrees of Conservatism.
I don't think Starmer is interested in changing much at all.
Not because the voters will agree with anyone but because they will need solutions.
They won't even bother asking voters.
From bailing out the banks to pandemic mega-spending, the state intervenes not because voters have agreed but because there is no alternative.
This is what I genuinely don’t understand….why all this backtracking and u-turns?
Good question. All it does it give power to us "I told you so" types as he turns out to be exactly what we are already seeing. He either is showing what he really thinks and wants to do or some other forces are at work (and I don't mean tin foil hat stuff, I just don't know what they are)
It is starting to be a real struggle to keep up with Starmer's backtracking.
Keir Starmer is considering dropping a promise to reinstate the Department for International Development (DfID), prompting anger from senior Labour figures and high-profile names in the international development world.
The Labour leader promised last year to restore the department, which was scrapped in 2020 by Boris Johnson, who called it a “giant cashpoint in the sky”.
Sarah Champion, the Labour chair of the international development committee, said: “If we want credibility going into the general election, we have to be seen to keep to our promises. One we have been consistent is bringing back a new Department for International Development. It has to have that independence.”
So now Keir Starmer wants to back Boris Johnson's policy of making foreign aid conditional on foreign governments showing sufficient gratitude by complying with UK foreign policy goals.
Presumably "value for money" is the main consideration here.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11875293/boris-foreign-office-aid/
Sir Keir didn’t get his title for being “outstanding in his field”. It’s a customary practice to give the outgoing head of the CPS a gong. He literally just had to stay in the job to keep it. On the way he collected his own piece of pension legislation so he could be treated differently to all of us.
This whole thread is mostly pretty depressing.
Irrespective of their political beliefs I think the leader of any national political party should be:
- honest / consistent
- have broad experience in a number of areas
- have the ability to think systemically i.e. on the issues and the links between issues
- the ability to form a team with the right experience to execute policy
- should be able to articulate policies that they don’t immediately have to renege on because it turned out they didn’t understand the direct or indirect consequence
Starmer has none of these qualities.
It very debatable if he believes anything he says - for a guy that’s criticised the U-turns of others he’s now way ahead of the them.
In his policies he doesn’t seem to grasp the feasibility of achieving them or have the nous to filter out the ones that will have a massive downside.
His personal integrity also appears to be fluid - the paedo attacks on Sunak were abhorrent and completely unfair.
His leadership team are more of the same (at best) and at worst are total fools who would be given little if any responsibility outside politics.
From bailing out the banks to pandemic mega-spending, the state intervenes not because voters have agreed but because there is no alternative
Voters are at the end of the shit storm though.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1673975407920443395?s=19
Can't see Rich lasting with sensible talk like that.
Oh, I don't know, Burgon has shown himself to be pretty adept at denying making comments if they turn out to be awkward, even if there is video evidence: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/richard-burgon-zionism-shadow-minister-jeremy-corbyn-comments-a8872896.html
Things will go so far downhill that it will be the only way to correct it
Disaster socialism. As capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, it's always good news when things get worse!
I wonder what Naomi Klein would think to that.
I think Socialism is the default position for water supply really.