Labour At War Over Green Spending
June 9, 2023
By Paul Homewood
Labour at war over green new deal:
Rachel Reeves’ attempts to put the blame on the Tories is of course utterly pathetic. The £28 billion never was affordable.
To pretend that they can get spending up to that level after a couple of years is also dishonest.
So where does all of this leave the idiot Miliband? He has had far too much influence on Labour’s climate policies for much too long.
Sooner or later the cold hard realities will win out.
14 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Green Prosperity Plan indeed. There can never be a green prosperity unless you are in the eco business and thriving on taxpayer subsidies and grants. Green translates into ever diminishing standard of living with hunger, cold houses, unaffordable transportation and certainly no cheap holidays.
Johnbillscott hits the Green nail on the head.
Ed Milliband, shadow Energy Secreterary, is the opposite of suitable for that job. Does he kknow or care that his ruinous policies are also futile while the great majority of manmade CO2 comes from nations whose fixed policies debar decarbonisation?
Which countries does he support?
His record implies that GB is not one of them.
Still under the delusion that the current bunch are “Tories”. They are “climate” and “green” fanatics pretending to be Conservatives. Totally ignoring the free market and inventing taxes, regulations and bans for the products that the actual market wants and needs are why the economy is crashing. They might just as well merge with the Labour party.
Too true
‘Labour scraps plan to spend £28billion every year on green technology and jobs
‘Rachel Reeves has announced that Labour has scrapped its flagship plan to spend £28billion a year on green jobs and technology.’
When decadence slips on the budget carpet.
Not just the budget but reality. How could you spend £28 billion immediately? 10 big windfarms would require land, planning, orders that might take 2-3 years to fulfill, training of a few thousand people, insurance, supplies of concrete and so on. And that would only be a fraction of £28 billion in total anyway. You simply can’t just spend £28 billion.
Easy. It goes on energy subsidies for favoured demographics.
Corbyn was planning on spending £100billion a year, although not just on green crap. Clearly Labour hasn’t really changed despite “sensible” Starmer aka Mr Nonentity being in charge.
National Grid is already saying there is a backlog of between 10 – 15 years that is delaying unreliables from connecting to the grid and Ofgem has said the first come, first serve queueing process is being held up by “zombie” projects which will probably never get built.
But, of course, politicians believe that if they announce something it will magically happen!
The idea you can just immediately spend £28 billion is entirely stupid. People need to be trained, factories built, supplies procured, land planned. If say £10 billion was to be spent on jobs, at £50,000/job in total, that’s 200,000 people to be employed. You can’t just do that in a month or two. And what will they be employed to do if you could? It’s classic Leftie fantasy.
The £28 billion never was affordable.
Remember that was a *per year* plan. They were going to borrow the money, so nothing has been saved and they still intend to borrow a lot but at a slower rate initially. Where the returns are supposed to come from to offset the borrowing isn’t obvious.
Labour has scaled back plans to borrow £28bn a year to invest in green jobs and industry as the party’s leadership looks to review its spending in an attempt to prove its fiscal credibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/labour-government-would-have-to-delay-28bn-green-fund-rachel-reeves-says
‘Fiscal credibility’ 🤔
I give up, I’m going out in my 50yo open top car got to stave of the next ice age some how.
10-4. In a couple hours, I’m going to get my BMW moto out and ride a hundred miles. For no reason.
When I was a lad my mum taught me to address the most important person first. So why on his tweet at 9.00am did he quote Keir as being first and at 9.38 am it was Rachel first. Had the unnamed reporter determined that one more reverse ferret, and he’s gone.