Forum menu
If Labour can't defend from Tory attacks a policy which is massively popular with voters what hope is there?
And no, Labour don't have to wait until the Tories agree with them before adopting a vital policy.
People are far too attached to their gas central heating, energy sieve homes, ICE cars, flying to a holiday destination to see the northern light or a big hole in the ground to vote for change.
It's not attachment, it's the cost eg we live in a Victorian House, which is a heat sieve. What is needs it about £35k spent on it to improve energy efficiency. However, our gas bill is only £800 a year, so it makes no financial sense whatsoever to spend the £35k and suffer all the disruption.
We also aren't allowed to externally insulate our walls as we're in a conservation area, nor allowed to put solar on the roof facing the street...
It doesn't even make sense to upgrade our 35 year old boiler to a modern condensing one as the payback is over 10 years.
And no, Labour don’t have to wait until the Tories agree with them before adopting a vital policy.
You see the smoking remains of HS2, right? Sunak's govt cannot even agree to the spending commitments of previous Tory administrations of just a decade and a half ago., Both the parties have to agree that long term policies such as those to tackle climate change that will require structures and projects that last beyond a term need to both be funded properly and not dicked about with.
There is zero point in Labour starting work on anything if any subsequent Tory administration is going to tear it all down, or direct the money to something else.
It's not about paying more, it's about distributing what we have effectively and efficiently with "green" stuff at the top of the agenda. No more building new roads and "one more lane will fix it" attitude. No more motor-centric developments. A complete reset on building works to prioritise and reward "green" investment like better insulation, heat pumps, solar etc.
Schemes to refit existing homes, community energy schemes, re-wilding, of flood plains...
There's a huge amount that could be done that simply involves redirecting existing funds. National Highways, as generally unfit for purpose at the best of times, needs a total overhaul. In fact, they need scrapping and the remnants amalgamated into Active Travel England where ATE get absolute priority on new build and the old National Highways get called in at the last minute to beg for crumbs. Kind of like what happens now but in reverse!
It doesn't need more taxes, it needs a complete rethink right from the very top and that'll involve upsetting the auto industry and the housebuilders (most of whom seem to be Tory donors...). Can't just keep banging up lowest-common-denominator boxes on flood plain and calling 4 of them "affordable homes" in order to get round planning regs - time to build proper efficient homes properly!
I get why Labour aren't keen to go in full gas on green policies because it will involve fundamental widescale changes which naturally enough no-one wants cos people don't like change but equally they do need to start saying "look, this climate emergency thing is actually quite serious...."
And then shoot all of the conspiracy theory pillocks that go "well why's it snowing if we're warming up?"
Yes, but as with all these things, how well will it be managed? Is someone actually making sure the money is put to good use and spent wisely, or will it just be big handouts to companies of party donors who make empty box ticking promises that are never followed up on?
If you apply that attitude to life you'd never give money to charity nor ever invest in anything...
Nothing is ever managed perfectly or 100% efficiently. But if you choose to do nothing you 100% guarentee nothing will actually happen.
So many misconceptions on this thread. There's no reason why any of us should have to 'pay more'. As a country we have to invest money to transform the economy away from fossil fuels, but that money doesn't come from raising taxes. Even if it did (it doesn't!), it would be a bloody stupid strategy to raise that money from working people, for the simple reason that they won't vote for it, and neither should they unless they see corporations and the rich being taxed first.
And don't get me started on the 'it's already too late' bullshit.. 😡
There is zero point in Labour starting work on anything if any subsequent Tory administration is going to tear it all down, or direct the money to something else.
There's no point in having things like this as a policy, as the tories will simply use it as spin to sway voters "profligate spending"...
Thanks to Labour making it extremely easy for the Tories by agreeing to their fiscal prudence narrative
How do you pay more, if its not your fault? how do you pay morE, if you have to work more and cause more hassle to get the money to pay it?
Because that's how taxes work. They aren't fines. We all give up a bit of money (we don't actually 'pay') to do the things that need doing for the benefit of everyone else. That's the point of society. If you think taxes are high then why not try hiring your own security services, paying for private education, paying tolls on every road, operating your own landfill site, paying private healthcare and so on. You'd soon get fed up with that.
Yes - but only if it could be spent as outlined.
Ring fenced? That won't happen as there is no way that any government would hypothecate the revenue generated.
It would just be another element of general taxation and the population would have no influence over how it's spent.
I don't think we should give the public influence over how it's spend. The public doesn't know its arse from its elbow, generally speaking.
I suspect the real issue is that £28b was always much less than we should be "spending" in the next few years on environmentally focussed infrastructure and energy projects, but putting any number against it is just handing ammunition to the Daily wail and "Pop-Con" Climate deniers for the Culture war, none of whom will mention the potential returns on those "investments", really Labour need to push the benefits much harder and stop letting the discussion drift back to the same old Neo-lib talking points about "Cost".
SKS and Co. are slowly winning the overall argument for them to be in power, or rather the Tories are gradually demonstrating their un-fitness for office. But part of Labour's tactics still seems to be keeping relatively quiet about policy and plans so as to not spook the normies with too many big ideas and promote anything that the Culture Warriors might seize on.
Basically Labour get in power, then start to do the right thing... We hope .
Much simpler answer.
Tax the tax dodging mega companies like Amazon, ****ter, Starbucks, BP, Shell, and banks properly. Plus properly take the assets off the Russians hiding in banks and property in the UK.
Do that many there will be plenty ot £££ to do it, and enough left to fund schools, the NHS, and proper High Speed railway all the way from Penzance to Inverness.
Maybe too simple an answer. Any idea what £££ doing that adds up to or are you just assuming it is a lot?
I thought we were paying more already - like we've already paid the water companies to fix leaks and sewage dumping.
But it seems we've just paid bonuses.
Just renationalise all essential services as the first step.
molgrips - to be clear, I'm not suggesting the population (including you) should have direct influence over tax spending.
My comment was a direct response to Daffy's post - specifically, the comment about ring-fencing.
When labour take over, we will be nearly £3 trillion in national debt, paying over £100 billion a year in interest to that debt and having to budget the rest like never before, if labour are to have any staying power in government, they need to prove they have fiscal competence, and can effectively bring the UK back into some sort of ability of living within its means.
To have a £28 billion commitment the minute they get into government would just cause them issues galore, and the tories ammunition, what do we cut to get that £28 billion, how do we know we've getting value for money, or making any impact for it, etc, etc. Any new government will need to do any investment within the budget and probably within departments, or through policy more than anything, private money will pay the lion share of any green revolution, via legislation and policy changes and companies competing in the markets, with subsidies/tax cuts/etc to assist of course.
I think in the UK we've been improving with our green innovation over the years and it needs quiet steering more than some big budget statement that's been doing it.
I don’t think we should give the public influence over how it’s spend. The public doesn’t know its arse from its elbow, generally speaking.
Unfortunately, they vote for politicians who don't either.
Yes, but as with all these things, how well will it be managed? Is someone actually making sure the money is put to good use and spent wisely, or will it just be big handouts to companies of party donors who make empty box ticking promises that are never followed up on?
I sort of agree, e.g. spending £££££££'s to "study" some hydrogen based scheme is wasted money, it'll not be viable. But then the company that did the study is probably only making a 2% profit on that (it's a very competitive market) so it all went in a circle back to wages etc anyway. The company then has a track record of "hydrogen" projects so wins more work around the world where it might be more viable. So more wages, more taxes etc. So these pointless studies do serve a purpose.
The UK's Oil and Gas consulting industry is huge, little to none of it's domestic work though , it's all the result of work done here in the 70s and 80s, so the talent is still here to do those projects worldwide. That's the same reason the French have a nuclear industry.
So it is important in the long term to invest in a few dead ends now. Then in 20-30 years we'll be building offshore wind in Africa rather than oil platforms.
Spending money on the environment now will save money later. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Making train travel cheap and fully electric to stop people using cars now or paying for home insulation for everyone, funded by government, will save spending money on flood responses, coastal defences and all the other costs associated with climate change in future. By saying we're not spending £28bn now they're robbing Peter (the future) to pay Paul (the present). Really, £28bn isn't anywhere near enough. I'd pay more taxes to cover it, but it one penny of that got spent on defence instead (which is probably what will happen, that or wasting time filling in potholes) I'd be pissed off.
In the absence of an ability to pay more tax for the green revolution, those that are wealthy enough to have investments could look to an environmentally positive investment account like the Triodos Impact Fund. As spending on environmental initiatives and products increases the return on these investments is likely to be better than regular schemes which invest in fossil fuels. My ethical pension has performed better than the standard product from the same provider already.
TRIODOS.CO.UK When labour take over, we will be nearly £3 trillion in national debt
To have a £28 billion commitment the minute they get into government would just cause them issues galore
1% increase in spend on something worthwhile that will see it back again will cause them issues how?
Labour might as well not exist as a meaningful political party with its own policies because the Tories will just reverse anything they do. Instead they should provide a ballot paper opportunity for Conservative voters who strongly prefer red to blue?
I will probably be paying anyway. I’d rather pay less today than pay far more tomorrow.
When labour take over, we will be nearly £3 trillion in national debt
To have a £28 billion commitment the minute they get into government would just cause them issues galore
So much wrong with this.
Firstly when has the national debt ever effectively been a problem to you or anyone? You're not on the hook for it.
Second: National debt that is with government stands about 2.3bn. The BoE owns the rest with Q/E (and the government owns the BoE). The government issues money to pay the debt. (Source ONS for debt figures.)
Third: The national debt is not a debt as such it's just a matched issuance of bonds made after the government spends. This happens (optionally it's not necessary to spend) to act as a reserve drain. So the government via the BoE say spends 28bn into the economy. So more reserves. The government then removes 28bn of private sector money through bond issuance. A swap of non interest bearing reserves for interest bearing money (gilts.)
Forth: Not a useful metric but interesting is that our debt/GDP stands at about 100% - Singapore about 170%/GDP. Meaning if you want Singapore on Thames then your government needs to issue money for the economy to grow.
Fifth: Reduction in debt is the same as removing money from the economy which you can do in boom times but why now? It's the exact opposite of what we need.
Sixth: The national debt is nothing more than an accounting sheet of money spent. It represents the net money supply. And all bond issuance is made with prior government spending.
Don't be scared of it.
The real problems are health, climate, infrastructure and housing. They're all in deficit. They need money.
Only a Neoliberal will use the national debt as an argument for not doing something and then go on to fund war or like Sunak give 3bn in tax breaks to an oil company without making ridiculous excuses about affordability.
Stop making excuses for Labour not spending otherwise what's the point? Starmer is taking more flak for u-turning on this than committing to it.
The point of Labour is to sort the mess - yeah? - so stop hiding from and misrepresenting government finances because you're simply doing God's work for the Tories. And if you're going to cite government figures at least get them correct.
The real problems are health, climate, infrastructure and housing. They’re all in deficit. They need money.
+1
You only have to look at the crumbing infrastructure around us to realise that spending less (austerity) isn't going to makes things better. In fact, it just makes things worse, which then cost even more money to fix down the line.
To answer the ops original question then it’s a big o for me for 2 reasons
e1. Government will mess up any investment and it will cost more and deliver less than its supposed to be use that’s just the reality of all governments of any colour
2 In the slim chance that they do get it right so what.? How ill that help? Even if the Uk became net negative zero o a global scale that wont move the dial at all. Sure it will stroke some egos but from a climate perspective it wont move the dial so why bother paying for something that wont work. The reality is no one is doing anything that is going to meaningfully move the dial. As an example, because my parents are on a cruise ant the moment. According to the internet there are 8 massive new cruise ships due for launch this year and the same the following year. Huge amounts of raw materials will be consumed building an operating them for what purpose? To make some rich people richer, give some people jobs and some to have a great holiday. Hardly helping the climate though and no one with any power or influence is questioning this. I’m sure there ar3 thousands of similar e maples that could be used.
So in summary I’m firmly in the we are stuffed camp. Climate change is happening, will make the planet unsuitable for human habitation but south out meaningful global change Im not going to pay for tokenism
Austerity is what happens when you contract government spending and we all hated that didn't we? Did you all enjoy trying to pay down the national debt during that period, did the economy boom or take off? No things went shit.
Pay off the national debt = contract the economy. That is take more out of the economy via taxes than is spent. Not rocket science.
(What's crazy though is the stupid Tories still managed to spend a fortune. But not on the things that counts.)
The flaw in the argument for UK new zero is that it doesn't matter how much of our 1% of world CO2 we cut it will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere. Despite the UK cutting CO2 over the past decades world levels have continued to steadily increase and will for the forseeable future.
So we are better spending money coping with the effects of climate change rather than pretending anything we do in this country will stop it happening. Better flood defences. More resiliant infrastructure. Etc
So extra tax for net zero - no.
The flaw in the argument for UK new zero is that it doesn’t matter how much of our 1% of world CO2 we cut it will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere. Despite the UK cutting CO2 over the past decades world levels have continued to steadily increase and will for the forseeable future.
It's not a flaw at all, no one has been pretending that the UK is responsible for all CO2 emissions.
However, if everyone does nothing it's only going to get worse a lot quicker than currently.
China will eventually bring their emissions under control (as it's in their long term interests to do so) and they'll probably achieve it way faster than the West can.
When labour take over, we will be nearly £3 trillion in national debt, paying over £100 billion a year in interest to that debt and having to budget the rest like never before
Oh FFS, how many times!?? 🙄
So we are better spending money coping with the effects of climate change rather than pretending anything we do in this country will stop it happening. Better flood defences. More resiliant infrastructure. Etc
Yeah, lets build a 5m concrete wall around the country and rebuild our entire water, energy and transport infrastructure. Easy peasy! It's not like we don't have a proven track record of building infrastructure quickly and on the cheap is it? Look at HS2 and Hinkley Point for instance, two amazing examples of how great we are at this sort of thing! 🙄
The flaw in the argument for UK new zero is that it doesn’t matter how much of our 1% of world CO2 we cut it will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere.
“I mean, I could stop dropping my litter everywhere, but there are millions of other people in this country, what difference can one person make?”
After decades of working towards international agreements to change direction on energy sources… unilaterally just giving up will lead to other countries ignoring those agreements and that hard thought for consensus as well.
So we can't build infrastructure but we can control world temperature?
We can change our energy sources, and persuade others to do so as well. Being ahead rather than behind gives us an economic advantage as well… one that many people would willing vote against, sadly.
"“I mean, I could stop dropping my litter everywhere, but there are millions of other people in this country, what difference can one person make?”!
The difference being if we don't drop litter in the UK we are litter free. We could cut our CO2 to zero and world CO2 would still go up.
"We can change our energy sources, and persuade others to do so as well. Being ahead rather than behind gives us an economic advantage as well…"
Or we can raise our electricity prices to the point industry goes overseas.
1% on the basic rate raises just over £5 billion so you would need a 5% increase in the tax rate. Everyone who pays an electricity bill is already funding substantial subsidies for "green" electricity production.
There's an interesting mutually exclusive double-think in Popular attitudes to the UK's place in the world, isn't there?
We're somehow expected to believe both that we are both succeeding as the fifth biggest economy but also utterly helpless when it comes to economic direction: both Britain and Bhutan. We're also expected to believe both that we are technical leaders and vital operators in the knowledge economy and human progress, but that any attempt to invest in technological advancement (for example in green tech) would be a waste of resouces better spent on incentives to the fossil fuel industry. It's almost always there in the view of Britain we are presented with: a duality of simultaneous triumphalism and hopeless dismalism.
I am reminded of W.B. Yeats' September 1913, written in the aftermath of the Dublin Lock-out. What is Britain good for if it keeps counting pennies on behalf of vested interests while the world burns?
Everyone who pays an electricity bill is already funding substantial subsidies for “green” electricity production.
Which is barking mad as the gas they want you to switch from is not only cheaper, but doesn't have a green levy attached!
The green levy should be attached to fossil fuels...
The difference being if we don’t drop litter in the UK we are litter free. We could cut our CO2 to zero and world CO2 would still go up.
If we went CO2 neutral in the UK we would export the enabling technology to the whole world. The alternative is that we import it after it has been developed elsewhere. We know it is going to happen anyway because the alternative is more expensive.
Yes, an extra 10p per litre of diesel or petrol sounds good to me.
That's slightly less than £5 billion.
That’s slightly less than £5 billion.
Pretty good then.
Yeah, let’s build a 5m concrete wall around the country and rebuild our entire water, energy and transport infrastructure. Easy peasy! It’s not like we don’t have a proven track record of building infrastructure quickly and on the cheap is it? Look at HS2 and Hinkley Point for instance, two amazing examples of how great we are at this sort of thing! 🙄
The Dutch did and it seems to be working.
We could do something’s for free but wwe aren’t. We could stop building on flood plains. We could mandate water companies to build more reservoirs that could capture more storm run off and make use of it rather than it just going into the sea via property. We could stop building on low lying or rapidly eroding parts of the coast. We could invest in tidal energy rather than covering the country with very inefficient solar panels.
Therre is plenty we could do, some of wouldn’t even cost anything just don’t give out the planning consent for example.
Context for today's £28bn kerfuffle
And from another perspective - the Covid-19 pandemic cost the UK government between £310 billion to £410 billion.
Anthropogenic climate change is far more serious and is, and will have, potentially devastating consequences for all species.
There is no issue more important.