Labour U Turns Part 164

[bpoolrover]

https://apple.news/AgDHfKlhzTK2iNxeyczlSDg

[SydneyRover]

Do tell how Blackppol is faring under 14 years of tory governments bp and that you are advocating for another 5 years. Asking for a friend.

[bpoolrover]

Do tell how Blackppol is faring under 14 years of tory governments bp and that you are advocating for another 5 years. Asking for a friend.

ive not done anything apart fron put a link up from your favourite newspaper

[SydneyRover]

Fair enough ........ why?

[ncRover]

So we’ve gone from “net zero by 2030” to “clean power by 2030” to..?

[albie]

The headline figure of £28 billion was never the point anyway.
It was very bad politics, and even worse economics, to put up a straw man figure that has little basis in reality.

No-one knows what the final cost of decarbonising the economy will be, it depends on inflation and the speed with which the task is addressed.

What is much more concerning is the technologies which Reeves and Keith are backing.
Expensive non-solutions favoured by Big Oil to keep the status quo as long as possible.

Unbankable nuclear, with Hinkley Point now further delayed and costs ballooning out of control (just like Hs2), looks like a disaster in the making.
Small modular nukes nowhere near commercial viability, and carbon capture projects which are completely irrelevant to the overall reductions at scale needed.

With a straight face, Reeves has said that reducing energy costs is a key objective.
The proposals she supports will increase energy costs to consumers and businesses, as anyone in the energy economy sector understands.

[SydneyRover]

As I've said before with the cost of nuclear and ever decreasing cost (and slowly increasing efficiency) of solar it has to be the way to go.

But

Sorry, France, you’re on the hook at Hinkley Point ........

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/jan/25/sorry-france-youre-on-the-hook-at-hinkley-point-edf

[albie]

Yes, Sydney....but Keith and Rachel don't think that!

Neither have any understanding of the technologies nor the economics of energy, and are easy prey for the industry lobby cruising for public subsidy.
The amount of £4.7 billion that they will now allocate is a reduction from the £8 billion the Tories are spending.
It won't even touch the size of the challenge.

The economic strategy based upon a green industrial rejuvenation is the key plank in a Keynesian growth model.
Without that, the emperor has no clothes!

[SydneyRover]

I happy to have all the facts out there Albie, whether they support what I say or not, it makes for a more informed conversation. It's much better than guessing what people think.

[MachoMadness]

Starmer on ITV saying the u turn is necessary because the Tories are "maxing out the government credit card".

Great politics, in no way shackles them to an illiterate economic policy. Very smart, very grown up.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe you can explain how big promises can be made and kept while growth is so low MM, how many promises have the tories kept that involve committing shed loads of money?

[BillyStubbsTears]

As I say, the first thing to do is win an election.

Doesn't matter how "right" you are on the economics. If the other side gets traction by battering you down as economically untrustworthy, you lose.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019.

You lose the election and you can be as right as you want. It does f**k all good.

Win the election and all sorts of "circumstances" can change afterwards.

Because this is real politics. Not a student debating club.

[bpoolrover]

100 percent right the best way is to get in power to change anything, the gripe is bst when the tories u turn all you do is slate them, when labour do you make excuses for them, you say labour will need 10 years to rectify what the tories have done, but when tories came into piwdr there was no money, since then there has been russia war, brexit(own doing) and covid and that on the back of the banks crashing, and you gave them about a week before moaning, it would be nice if you were the same both ways that would be more grown up to

[ncRover]

Starmer on ITV saying the u turn is necessary because the Tories are "maxing out the government credit card".

Great politics, in no way shackles them to an illiterate economic policy. Very smart, very grown up.

Is there any evidence Labour would have spent less?

And what is the difference between this and Cameron’s rhetoric in 2010?


*edit sorry I think I just clocked your sarcasm

[MachoMadness]

As I say, the first thing to do is win an election.

Doesn't matter how "right" you are on the economics. If the other side gets traction by battering you down as economically untrustworthy, you lose.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019.

You lose the election and you can be as right as you want. It does f**k all good.

Win the election and all sorts of "circumstances" can change afterwards.

Because this is real politics. Not a student debating club.

There was a fella on here who used to say that undermining objective truth was the biggest threat to our society. Hope he's doing alright, wherever he is.

[Not Now Kato]

Starmer was facing a bit of a dilemma. Admit now that the country can't afford to do what Labour said they would, or wait till after Labour get elected, (assuming they will), to admit it.
 
Rock and a hard place springs to mind.  Time will tell if he made the right choice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is the state of our politics though. In a grown up country, a party that openly proposed to transform the economy and wean it off oil and gas would be massively popular. Everyone who looks at this issue knows we have to do it, for lots of reasons. Climate change is the overwhelming one. But also to insulate ourselves from any more f**king about by Putin in the energy markets.

But the Tories have been planning an entire election campaign around the idea that Labour making this investment is economically rash. And Labour see this as the way they could lose the election.

What a f**king country, eh?

[BillyStubbsTears]

As I say, the first thing to do is win an election.

Doesn't matter how "right" you are on the economics. If the other side gets traction by battering you down as economically untrustworthy, you lose.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019.

You lose the election and you can be as right as you want. It does f**k all good.

Win the election and all sorts of "circumstances" can change afterwards.

Because this is real politics. Not a student debating club.

There was a fella on here who used to say that undermining objective truth was the biggest threat to our society. Hope he's doing alright, wherever he is.

I've always thought you were a smart lad, but you don't seem to understand what Objective Truth is.

[wilts rover]

Starmer on ITV saying the u turn is necessary because the Tories are "maxing out the government credit card".

Great politics, in no way shackles them to an illiterate economic policy. Very smart, very grown up.

Is there any evidence Labour would have spent less?

And what is the difference between this and Cameron’s rhetoric in 2010?


*edit sorry I think I just clocked your sarcasm

See bpoolrover's post above. He continues to trot out Cameron's retoric from 2010 and it was and still is a lie. The UK national debt when Labour left office in 2010 was just under £1 trillion. It is now over £2.5 trillion TWO AND A HALF TIMES as much.

Cameron lied to the public, and was helped by the media not least the BBC who kept repeating this lie 'there's no money left' he and they knew as well as anyone that sovereign governments can never run out of money. It's a political choice on how much debt they run up - and how they choose to repay that debt.

Cameron lied repeatedly, Starmer has downsized his pledges. The public will judge if these things are the same.

[Sprotyrover]

Starmer on ITV saying the u turn is necessary because the Tories are "maxing out the government credit card".

Great politics, in no way shackles them to an illiterate economic policy. Very smart, very grown up.

Is there any evidence Labour would have spent less?

And what is the difference between this and Cameron’s rhetoric in 2010?


*edit sorry I think I just clocked your sarcasm

See bpoolrover's post above. He continues to trot out Cameron's retoric from 2010 and it was and still is a lie. The UK national debt when Labour left office in 2010 was just under £1 trillion. It is now over £2.5 trillion TWO AND A HALF TIMES as much.

Cameron lied to the public, and was helped by the media not least the BBC who kept repeating this lie 'there's no money left' he and they knew as well as anyone that sovereign governments can never run out of money. It's a political choice on how much debt they run up - and how they choose to repay that debt.

Cameron lied repeatedly, Starmer has downsized his pledges. The public will judge if these things are the same.

One word PANDEMIC, another word WAR ! Grow up Wilts

[SydneyRover]

Unfortunately the UK under the tories was not fully prepared for either, aye?

The government had full knowledge that a pandemic was likely at some time, fmd they even conducted events played out scenarios. The NHS near broke and a shortage of staff.

Did the security services let the UK down following the invasion of the Crimea or even before that?

[drfchound]

Unfortunately the UK under the tories was not fully prepared for either, aye?

The government had full knowledge that a pandemic was likely at some time, fmd they even conducted events played out scenarios. The NHS near broke and a shortage of staff.

Did the security services let the UK down following the invasion of the Crimea or even before that?

“Was likely at some time”.
Yes, they might have been but it happened and had to be dealt with ….. financially as well.
The furlough scheme wasn’t just a two Bob job either was it.
What would you say, I wonder, if Covid had come along next year with Labour in power, and all the mess hit their fan.
Surely they would have been aware that a pandemic would have been likely at some time.

[Sprotyrover]

Unfortunately the UK under the tories was not fully prepared for either, aye?

The government had full knowledge that a pandemic was likely at some time, fmd they even conducted events played out scenarios. The NHS near broke and a shortage of staff.

Did the security services let the UK down following the invasion of the Crimea or even before that?

Hey Syd which nations were prepared for either event?

[SydneyRover]

If you'd like to discuss all this with hound, sprot I'm sure he can accommodate you,  but careful he's likely to make a slur, delete it and then claim he never wrote it

[drfchound]

Unfortunately the UK under the tories was not fully prepared for either, aye?

The government had full knowledge that a pandemic was likely at some time, fmd they even conducted events played out scenarios. The NHS near broke and a shortage of staff.

Did the security services let the UK down following the invasion of the Crimea or even before that?

Hey Syd which nations were prepared for either event?

He won’t answer you mate, he is too busy making things up.
He should be known as The Chemist.

[MachoMadness]

As I say, the first thing to do is win an election.

Doesn't matter how "right" you are on the economics. If the other side gets traction by battering you down as economically untrustworthy, you lose.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019.

You lose the election and you can be as right as you want. It does f**k all good.

Win the election and all sorts of "circumstances" can change afterwards.

Because this is real politics. Not a student debating club.

There was a fella on here who used to say that undermining objective truth was the biggest threat to our society. Hope he's doing alright, wherever he is.

I've always thought you were a smart lad, but you don't seem to understand what Objective Truth is.

Do you think Starmer believes the country has maxed out it's credit card?

You're one of the people who opened my eyes to why that concept was bullshit, on this forum many years ago. So I know you know it's a fiction. And I doubt Starmer believes it. So when you knowingly peddle something that isn't true to sell a policy U-turn, that's a lie isn't it? And it's one that poisons the well for when you actually do want to invest in the future, even if you point to "circumstances" changing.

And the thing about this particular lie is it's so unnecessary. They are already 20 points ahead of a Tory party led by a PM who spent the week placing bets on whether he can deport refugees and taking the piss out of murdered kids! All this latest U-turn has done is hand Sunak an attack line totake the heat off himself a bit.

[SydneyRover]

MM, one has to be confident that growth will pay for the borrowings, isn't that how it works. Tell me you are confident of future growth, or you think that Starmer or anyone for that matter can hit the magic growth switch.

I would have thought that truss the lettuce and the markets would have shown everyone what can and shouldn't be done.

[wilts rover]

Starmer on ITV saying the u turn is necessary because the Tories are "maxing out the government credit card".

Great politics, in no way shackles them to an illiterate economic policy. Very smart, very grown up.

Is there any evidence Labour would have spent less?

And what is the difference between this and Cameron’s rhetoric in 2010?


*edit sorry I think I just clocked your sarcasm

See bpoolrover's post above. He continues to trot out Cameron's retoric from 2010 and it was and still is a lie. The UK national debt when Labour left office in 2010 was just under £1 trillion. It is now over £2.5 trillion TWO AND A HALF TIMES as much.

Cameron lied to the public, and was helped by the media not least the BBC who kept repeating this lie 'there's no money left' he and they knew as well as anyone that sovereign governments can never run out of money. It's a political choice on how much debt they run up - and how they choose to repay that debt.

Cameron lied repeatedly, Starmer has downsized his pledges. The public will judge if these things are the same.

One word PANDEMIC, another word WAR ! Grow up Wilts

Another word b*llocks! Check your facts before posting rubbish in public Sproty. The majority of the debt increase was before 2020 (graphs show total debt in monarary terms and as a % of GDP)

[wilts rover]

And this is why you think that - discussion of National Debt in the media when Labour are in power as oppossed to when the Tories are in power:

[drfchound]

Cheers for posting that graph wilts.
It clearly shows that the National Debt was clearly on the rise for a few years before 2010.
Can you suggest where it might be now had Labour still been in government.
Would things have been any different.