While all over Europe, opinion polls indicate that conservative and populist parties are set to make big electoral gains in the upcoming European Elections, in the UK, on the other hand, the leftist Labour Party has a big lead over the Conservative Government led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
But not even Labour can escape the reality. The party has sought to portray itself as the party of fiscal responsibility in a bid to rebuild confidence to run the economy once again.
And so, climate alarmist policies are beginning to fall by the roadside as Sir Keir Stammer and his team try to steer the ship towards a national electoral victory, the first since 2010.
“Britain’s opposition Labour Party said it would scrap a target to eventually spend 28 billion pounds ($35.3 billion) a year on green industries if it takes power, one of the biggest U-turns yet under party leader Keir Starmer.”
Labour had vowed to invest heavily in green technologies and jobs to get Britain out of a prolonged period of economic stagnation.
Tories have criticized the plan, saying that it could lead to higher borrowing costs and tax rises for the public.
“Starmer said the worsened economic outlook and high borrowing costs meant that Labour would ditch the main spending target, though it would maintain a range of the policies, such as the creation of a publicly-owned green power company, which he said were fully funded.
‘(But) we won’t make further, or new, investment decisions. And that means that we won’t reach the 28 billion pounds envisaged, and that figure is effectively stood down’, he told broadcasters.
‘The reason for that is because since we announced the 28 billion, the Tories (Conservative Party) have done terrible damage to our economy… I have to anticipate the circumstances as they are now, not as I’d wish them to be’.”
Stammer now plans to spend less than 5 billion pounds a year on green projects. Plans to invest in home insulation were also scaled back.
“Starmer criticised the Conservatives, who he said planned to ‘max out the government’s credit card’, in reference to their aspiration for pre-election tax cuts.”
Keir Starmer confirms he doesn’t have a plan for Britain.
His pledge has a £28bn price tag and now he’s admitted there’s no plan to pay for it, which means going back to square one with higher taxes for working people.
That’s why we need to stick with our plan that’s working.
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) February 8, 2024
Charles Moore wrote an insightful opinion piece on The Telegraph, in which we find these excerpts:
“After a tussle with their consciences, Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves, who, in 2021, declared at the party conference that she would be Britain’s ‘first green chancellor’, announced on Thursday that her exciting green investment plan, unveiled in that same speech, will, sort of, not happen. Under that plan, a Labour government would have spent an extra £28 billion every year until 2030, including ‘borrowing to invest’.
As late as Tuesday, Sir Keir was still clinging publicly to the £28 billion figure. He said he was “unwavering”. But on Thursday he waveringly tried to defuse his own tax bombshell. He had decided, though of course he did not put it like this, that voters care more that Labour should be safe with the economy than it should save the planet.“
London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s and his hated Ulez (Ultra Low Emitting Zone) is also working its negative magic. Voters are feeling the pain of green policies, not the gain.
“It follows that looking green is no longer a clear electoral plus. The Tories saw this slightly earlier than Labour last year. They stole a march by lessening the net-zero torture, extending the lives of the internal combustion engine and gas boilers. Probably Rishi Sunak intended no revolution of policy, only its softening, but the effect is marked. Once people realize you can have prosperity or an energy system dominated by renewables, but not both, they will choose prosperity. That realization has big political consequences. I believe it makes net zero by 2050 unachievable.
[…] Business wants green energy only if it is “de-risked” – in other words, if it is subsidized for the life of the asset. It is supposed to be “sustainable”, yet often only taxpayers’ money can sustain it. In short, it is unprofitable. And now, thanks to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (a title as good as The Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984), businesses will try to extort higher subsidy here and buzz off to America if they cannot get it.
[…] The other thought – and this is addressed especially to Sir Keir and his party – is “What about the workers?”. Labour, as its name suggests, was founded for the political representation of those who work. The whole climate-change caravanserai of international panels and world leaders gathering at summits to issue edicts and rebukes could have been expressly designed to exclude the wishes of the workers from their considerations.”