Labour To Spend £28bn A Year On Green Crap
September 28, 2021
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Labour finds Jeremy Corbyn’s Magic Money Tree again:
Labour has promised to spend an extra £28bn a year on making the UK economy more "green" if it wins power.
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the money would go on offshore wind farms, planting trees and developing batteries.
An aide to Ms Reeves told the BBC the £28bn would come from government borrowing and the investment should "have a positive impact" on the wider economy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58699072
Thank you, Rachel, for confirming that your party is even pottier than the Tories!
52 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Brilliant, Ms Reeves wants to borrow more money to invest in green wash nonsense that will make UK limited less able to compete on world markets. Utter lunacy
This is the quite insane new Left solution to the tax problem of vast spending – Modern Moneyary Theory, which claims that you can simply print as much money as you like (“borrowing”) and that allows you to vastly increase spending.
Once again, basic economic principles elude them. “Money” isn’t the issue, it’s just a measuring tool. If you double the number of people emotes by the NHS you have to take hundreds of thousands of workers from other areas of the economy. We may get more health production but we get at least as much a reduction in other production so in total we are no better off. The Left just simply refuses to understand why Left-wing “economics” simply doesn’t and can’t make us richer.
In opposition much can be promised without any real intention to deliver. Not much different from the present government’s stance except that Labour will not lose office as a result of issuing daft intentions.
I am determined to vote for almost anyone who is not LibLabCon next time.
When will this lunacy ever end? Not in my lifetime (nearing 80) I suspect. I would like to come back in 2050 to see how things turned out. Did reality kick in? Did some troughers go to prison? Is Wadhams still predicting arctic sea ice demise?
So its the Greens then?
There might be others. The Monster Raving Loony Party looks to be quite sane these days. Or if you are lucky there might be an independent candidate.
REEVES: “Our plan is to make Britain greener. Every year for the next decade I propose to invest £28 billion on this vital project. But to protect the poorest in society, we will not be asking anyone to pay a penny more in taxes. Instead we will borrow the money, and with interest rates as low as they are, this will be virtually cost-free!”
[Conference applauds heartily.]
REEVES: “To achieve this goal we intend to directly employ 100,000 people who will go from street to street with electric tankers of lime-coloured paint, buckets and rollers. Projections are that we will be 50% greener by 2030, and that is a promise you can trust your Labour government to deliver on!”
[Wild applause.]
REEVES: There will be supply-chain benefits too, although of course all of the paint, buckets, rollers, work clothes, lateral flow tests, etc etc will be produced in China. Our scientific advisors also predict that the increasing level of greenness will attract leprechauns, whose increased presence will ensure Britain’s future prosperity!”
[Chants of “Ooo, Jeremy Corbyn.]
Etc, etc.
developing batteries
Which never occurred to the rest of the world 🙄
Or to those who’d like to become filthy rich.
Just wait till someone claims the expenditure is designed to ‘change the climate’.
Where are the scientists to counter this AGW crusade and all the allied costs that will be borne by us all, for no benefit.
keeping their heads down
– many have mortgages and kids to feed.
The people we thought ought to (are paid to) protect us from mobs are either sitting on their hands or actively participating in the cancel culture….
Science and most of academia are Left wing.
Consider the advisory panel of the. GWPF.
How totally ignorant these politicians are!
Did Ms Reeves also talk about the approximately £10billion/year needed to cover social care costs? Or are such concerns now so very passés given that Bojo and his team have recently presented their own “oven-ready” solution?
Regards,
John.
For those who cannot differentiate between Red and Green, there is always the the problem of separating the medical condition from political thinking.
In Britain, a traffic light’s Green has added Blue, to help some of those with the medical condition, though I’m not sure that the current government understands this at all.
Does any MP have a brain these days??
There’s no votes in it if you’ve brainwashed 90% of the population to believe the crap that’s being spouted on almost everything these days…..
Borrowed from another site:
“What did socialists use before we had candles?……..Electricity!”
That reminds me I must stock up with candles.
If they just paid me 2 million a year for the next 5 years I would guarantee to change the weather for the better (whatever that is) – or die in the attempt (eventually)
We know the lunatics are running around in the asylum and making alot of noise.
This so called petrol ‘crisis’ have seen prices increase and news reports are claiming an increase in electric car sales.
Both good news for the government.
Higher income from fuel taxes and a greater uptake of electric cars ahead of the COP 26 Circus.
If I spend more on petrol I have to spend less on something else. Swings and roundabouts for tax. The tax take is actually pretty inelastic (in terms of increasing it), which is why the Left always struggles. If you want more tax you basically need to create more taxable incone/wealth. People who want fabulous public services should be raving free marketeers. That’s the irony of real economics rather than the playground nonsense most politicians peddle.
Yep. Why can’t anyone see this?
It was obviously all orchestrated. Everything is nowadays….the whole thing is a pre-planned circus.
I note that she confuses the owners of businesses with the businesses. Why is it so hard for these people to understand simple concepts? A company is a legal fiction. It doesn’t exist. Asking a fictional thing to pay tax is sheer and utter fantasy. Only people can pay tax and when you taxes businesses you are taxing people – in the case of multinationals that means employees and customers. If you want to tax Bezos, tax him, not Amazon.
She’s a leftard. Permanent cognitive dissonance.
Puzzling comment. Maybe I’m missing some deeper point you are driving at.
To my understanding, a registered company is a “person” in the eyes of the law. There are obviously some differences to people, but companies are subject to law and regulations, they have legal rights, restraints, and penalty for wrongdoing.
The experience of governments imposing a “windfall tax” on some businesses in the past would seem to be contrary to what you are suggesting.
Only puzzling if you haven’t read basic economics. But then many people don’t think they need to know anything about economics to pontificate. A company is simply an asset owned by its shareholders. It has no will, no being, and doesn’t spend money on itself. It is a legal person to enable it to be subject to laws and regulation so that various useful concepts such as limited liability can exist. Any payments of tax by a company come from pots of money that otherwise would go to actual people – employees, shareholders or customers (as lower prices) because a company has zero need of cash. Any apparent company spending benefits humans(usually senior managers), not the legal fiction. A windfall tax is not special. It too removes cash that otherwise would go to one or more of those groups.
This is not something I have made up, it’s basic economics. It’s not contentious in any way.
How do you know what background is? If you are going to make wild guesses about things you know nothing about, what else are you guessing when you comment?
Your response comes across as rather defensive. It’s “basic economic” (your words), and fails when it seeks to sweep aside the legal standing of companies.
Nice to hear your view that a company has zero need for cash. This is at odds with the need for a strong balance sheet, and businesses failures when they run of cash and cash equivalents. Ask some of these failing electricity suppliers what they would give for a half decent balance sheet, a favourable cash position and creditworthiness for trading.
Let’s just leave it at that.
Neptune gas us up over 10% already this morning at around 225p/therm. It’s what you have to rely on when the wind doesn’t blow and you refuse to burn coal.
You will be poor
You will be cold
You will be hungry
“Neptune” = NBP?
Yep. Autocorrect does amazing things after you’ve stopped looking. NBP
Plucking an arbitrary figure out of thin air is usually a sign they’re plucking policy out of thin air too.
It won’t be focused or what’s needed, just what they choose to virtue signal. Might as well put the 28 billion on red.
The important word “should” is used – this means they do not have a clue. One problem with our neo-conservatives is they try to outdo the left. We must get a “New Conservative” Party establishes – Doris Bunter and his ultra woke advisor, who condones the M25 idiots actions. must be drummed out as a start.
The REFORM PARTY speaks sense.
If you add up all the money the faux Tories are currently spunking up the wall on ‘green crap’, £28 billion per annum probably works out as a saving!
But the £28B is on top of that.
I bet the Labour Party ..Climate Change debate was impartial
given that the only named sponsor was DRAX
#GreenBlob is so much about PR
It is interesting to see that on woodburning
the PR teams are split with half of the main ones tweeting against Drax
curremt list
Consumers may have to pay more than expected for Green Crap
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1497690/heat-pumps-bill-replace-pipes-boris-johnson-net-zero-climate-change
Net zero policies are already changing the climate, Artic sea ice is okay, sea levels are not rising fast, sea temperature increase is so small to be unmeasurable, the coral reefs are thriving, hurricanes are very few, damaging extreme weather is decreasing, deserts are shrinking etc etc.
Politicians will be receiving awards for saving the planet.
A comment on the DT suggested the UK had to get ready to accept ‘climate refugees’!!
I suggested that the only climate refugees I knew of were the UK OAPs who spend their Winters in Spain and the US Pensioners who move from cold Chicago to Florida. Odd then that most people want to be warmer.
Journalism Researcher in Climate for BBC
retweeting Ed_Miliband , official Labour Party tweet
that makes out hydrogen steel is economically viable
It really isn’t
AFAIK Sweden has a SUBSIDISED research project
Today’s More or Less energy expert blamed UK wind for recent crunch
Her colleague just tweeted a link to their data bank
but it is actually much more like the usual pro wind corp PR spin
“Looking for the facts behind the headlines of UK energy crisis then check out the
@SPGlobalPlatts Atlas of Energy Transition™. Key data maps showing wind capacity, LNG imports, solar and energy fundamentals in one place.. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/1e05ebf390554cb8b7cefa80e521afda
Once you get into those pages, they are actually very noisy and his two Twitter pics cover the essentials
#1 The wind graphic put’s Germany as biggest by far, but that might be CAPACITY rather than output
Output is claimed at 24.5% of demand
… https://twitter.com/baldersdale/status/1439891342574989318
#2 The UK is the one with most offshore wind
… https://twitter.com/baldersdale/status/1439891342574989318
There is an obsession with planting trees, Boris wants 10 billion planted to save the planet.
This article was banging the drum for Scotland’s ambitious tree planting.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19610453.maintaining-growth-key-scottish-woodlands/
“With human activity threatening to take global warming to levels that could create ever more severe weather events, the ability of forests to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is coming sharply into focus. Of course, trees have been sequestering carbon since the first trees appeared on planet Earth around 400 million years ago. However, growing anxieties over climate change are now highlighting the positive role that forests and investment in our woodlands can play.”
They seem to have forgotten that last year this was their report:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/
“Lyndsey Ward, a Highlands wind farm activist, said: “Not only are millions of CO2 absorbing trees being felled for turbines, hundreds of thousands of acres of ancient carbon-holding peat are being dug up too.
“These figures are astronomical enough, but if you add in the infrastructure requirements and grid connections, many more trees will have been sacrificed and peat lost as remote wind factories are connected to a grid that cannot cope with them.”
75% of Scottish windfarms are on peatland and there is increased leaching of nutrients from the surrounding areas and increased stream flow. Seems that stops those wind farms from fighting “climate change.”
https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-built-on-carbon-rich-peat-bogs-lose-their-ability-to-fight-climate-change-143551
“Recent research has shown that the drainage caused by building and maintaining wind turbines can affect the whole peatland, not just the area next to the farm and its tracks. In our research, we encountered a track that divided the largest unrecognised blanket bog we found in the Cantabrian Mountains into two separate peatlands. The rupture is draining the bog and likely releasing carbon as the peat dries and breaks down.
This release can be so significant that the climate benefit of generating clean energy is likely to be neutralised. For bogs on the southernmost edge of their range in Europe, wind farm construction could mean the total destruction of this habitat and the loss of a natural way of fighting climate change.”
Gardeners will lose soon access to valuable peat compost, produced from lowland beds, to stop “methane release” yet wind farms can destroy upland peat bogs with impunity.
Developing batteries…good luck with that.
https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/membership/china-is-building-one-battery-gigafactory-a-week-the-us-one-every-four-months-simon-moores/
“Today, there are 136 of these super-sized electric vehicle battery plants in operation or being planned: 101 in China and 8 in the USA.
China is building a battery gigafactory (megafactory) at the rate of one every week; the USA at one every four months.
In 2019, China produced 72% of the world’s lithium-ion batteries whereas the USA only 9%.
What’s really important to understand is China’s forward-thinking in building out this electric vehicle supply chain which started well over a decade ago. It has not just built an entire suite of super-sized battery megafactories for its auto industry, but the supply chain to feed them.
Despite common thought, China produces only 23% of key battery raw materials combined. Yet it produced 80% of the next step in the chain – battery chemicals – and 66% of cathodes, 82% of anodes, and 72% of battery cells.
The further downstream of the supply chain you go towards an electric vehicle, the more dominant China’s position is.”
The right amount for the UK to spend on climate change mitigation is NIL.
Reading of this from safely across the pond makes me appreciate all the more every shot fired at the Accursed Redcoats. If only we’d waited until the welchers had been comfortably decimated by their National Socialist Hun buddies before intervening, there would be way fewer looters per capita “Over There.”
Bozo Johnson had set the standard but …
The UK’s political class broke all expectations as Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, at Labour Party conference, elevated itself to a new and unheard of level of ‘peak stupidity’.
Can the Conservatives win back this much cherished prize at their next shindig?
OT
From an article in the Journal of Petroleum Technology by the Society of Petroleum Engineers this month regarding green hydrogen manufacture offshore Holland.
A 1-MW electrolyzer inside a shipping container—will sit on the topside of an old gas platform a few miles offshore Holland where it will ingest desalinated seawater and pump out 400 kg/D of hydrogen. For perspective, 1 kg of hydrogen holds about the same energy in a fuel-cell vehicle as 1 gal of gasoline does in a conventional vehicle (ie. Makes 400 gpd equivalent). Power comes from a nearby windfarm via an existing connection and the price per kg of H2 runs $6 – $12 depending what price is charged for the power (or given that 1kg of H2 has the same energy as 1 gal of gasoline and the H2 runs $6 – $12 per gale while gasoline here in Texas runs ~$2/gal to manufacture).
And with an estimated price tag for the prototype of €10 million (about $11.7 million), Peters acknowledged that the pilot “is quite expensive,” especially given the relatively small size of its electrolyzer