Sunday, December 24, 2023
Policy-light
The Guardian reports that Labour is considering scaling back ambitious plans to borrow £28bn a year to invest in green jobs and industry amid fears the Conservatives will use the policy as a central line of attack in the general election campaign.
The paper says that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves will discuss the party’s flagship economic policy next month, with senior Labour figures pushing to drop the £28bn commitment entirely while others want to retain key elements of the plan:
Labour officials say they intend to keep central parts of their green policy, but want to recast them in a way that allows them to stop talking so much about what they cost, focusing instead on what the policies will achieve.
One insider said some were concerned about how a Labour government would grow the economy without the green plan, and whether it could be politically damaging for Starmer as it could leave him open to charges of “flip-flopping” by the Tories.
But they added: “There will be a pivot in the new year and the £28bn price tag as it exists now is unlikely to survive that. Whatever ultimately happens will be a further watering down of the position. This will be the Tories’ number one area of attack so they need to deal with it.”
It comes after Reeves delayed plans in June for the green fund to start in the first year of a Labour government, saying it would “ramp up” by the middle of a first parliament, as the party leadership looked to review its spending in an attempt to prove its fiscal credibility.
Many Labour officials are irritated that they have to defend the £28bn figure without being able to say how the money will be spent. Reeves has already been focusing on the outcomes of the investment, rather than its cost, which she did not mention in her Labour conference speech this autumn.
Even Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, is said to appreciate the political risks of the £28bn figure. He has focused on talking about the benefits of the scheme such as lower household bills.
One way to refocus attention on the scheme, said one shadow minister, would be to wrap the existing plans into one bill with a title that could mimic the Inflation Reduction Act in the US. “We could call it the ‘Bringing Bills Down Act’,” the person said.
Others, however, believe rebadging the scheme will not be enough, and want the overall financial commitment to be scaled back, perhaps dramatically. Labour insiders said these included Pat McFadden, the shadow Cabinet Office minister; Morgan McSweeney, Labour’s campaign chief; and the shadow Treasury minister, Spencer Livermore.
The plan is already hampered by the fact that Reeves has said it will only be achieved if it fits with Labour’s promise to have debt falling as a share of gross domestic product at the end of a five-year period. Her team have stressed that the fiscal rules are paramount.
Up until now the commitment to this green investment has been one of the few policies that has distinguished Labour from the current government. Without it they are effectively just Tory-lite and policy-free,
The paper says that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves will discuss the party’s flagship economic policy next month, with senior Labour figures pushing to drop the £28bn commitment entirely while others want to retain key elements of the plan:
Labour officials say they intend to keep central parts of their green policy, but want to recast them in a way that allows them to stop talking so much about what they cost, focusing instead on what the policies will achieve.
One insider said some were concerned about how a Labour government would grow the economy without the green plan, and whether it could be politically damaging for Starmer as it could leave him open to charges of “flip-flopping” by the Tories.
But they added: “There will be a pivot in the new year and the £28bn price tag as it exists now is unlikely to survive that. Whatever ultimately happens will be a further watering down of the position. This will be the Tories’ number one area of attack so they need to deal with it.”
It comes after Reeves delayed plans in June for the green fund to start in the first year of a Labour government, saying it would “ramp up” by the middle of a first parliament, as the party leadership looked to review its spending in an attempt to prove its fiscal credibility.
Many Labour officials are irritated that they have to defend the £28bn figure without being able to say how the money will be spent. Reeves has already been focusing on the outcomes of the investment, rather than its cost, which she did not mention in her Labour conference speech this autumn.
Even Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, is said to appreciate the political risks of the £28bn figure. He has focused on talking about the benefits of the scheme such as lower household bills.
One way to refocus attention on the scheme, said one shadow minister, would be to wrap the existing plans into one bill with a title that could mimic the Inflation Reduction Act in the US. “We could call it the ‘Bringing Bills Down Act’,” the person said.
Others, however, believe rebadging the scheme will not be enough, and want the overall financial commitment to be scaled back, perhaps dramatically. Labour insiders said these included Pat McFadden, the shadow Cabinet Office minister; Morgan McSweeney, Labour’s campaign chief; and the shadow Treasury minister, Spencer Livermore.
The plan is already hampered by the fact that Reeves has said it will only be achieved if it fits with Labour’s promise to have debt falling as a share of gross domestic product at the end of a five-year period. Her team have stressed that the fiscal rules are paramount.
Up until now the commitment to this green investment has been one of the few policies that has distinguished Labour from the current government. Without it they are effectively just Tory-lite and policy-free,
Comments:
<< Home
It sounds so much like a plan for Libdemmers to come thru the cracks selling our own policies to show that we ARE diferent from samey status quo Lab and Con.We could campaign that we are not tainted with the disasters of running a declining country as we have NOT been a govnt since the 1920s.To sell hope in a changing world.
Post a Comment
<< Home
