Ozanne

On QT most people seemed quite unforgiving of Labours decision on their green policy as they understand needed to change tact rather than fail on a manifesto promise. Seems like this hasn’t gone how the Tories wanted.

You mean there’s not gonna be the 67th street circuit or the calendar, a real shame. All the new F1 liveries have been dreadful so far.

I’d still rather him than Trump though. Sad case of affairs it’s either tbf.

Yeah it is in a way but the only people that suffer then are workers as those companies sales and profits decline they will cut the workforce.

I agree the fault is with big firms and governments and generally speaking someone getting a few flights isn’t going to be the problem. But if you say ‘lifestyle attitude’ is a problem then you are kinda placing it on normal people too.

You said earlier ‘lifestyle attitude’ and ‘consumerism’ is a problem.

Well yes of course crashing the £ isn’t good but that’s what Truss did

The Tories trashed the economy, the BoE put up interests from near zero to over 5% so they can’t justify spending that money now every year. Just another reason why raising interest rates has been a terrible move.

Red Ed is on board. Woop woop.

It was £8b so was technically only an extra £20b but the £28b has gone now so it doesn’t matter anyway.

Here’s some of Labours green policies.

I thought what the U.K. does won’t change anything?

It’s funny that the announcement today is literally just that Labour won’t spend £28b every year which we knew anyway. People were getting so excited for something that isn’t even new. They even say they remain committed to the ideas in the Green Prosperity Plan so hopefully now people can finally move on instead of endlessly moaning about £28b.

I’ve also said they made a mistake by costing the policy in the first place.

I’m saying that Labour tried to get ahead of the media by putting a costing on the policy which turns out was the wrong move because the media will go with the latest Tory spin. So Labour should’ve just left out the £28b part and accepted the usual double standards of people asking them how it will be paid for. I don’t think it makes them look unprincipled, as the end goals are still there it was just naive messaging in the first place.

They’ve kinda been forced into it by the media constantly running this story from ‘sources’ every few weeks when we knew about it back in June. It’s the same media that would’ve used the Tory message of ‘Labour are going to bankrupt the economy’ if they kept the £28b figure. Either way people brought it so Labour had to make changes. I believe that Starmer is passionate about changing this country for the better and is genuinely a good man; but I also believe he’s very driven to get Labour into power so will do whatever it takes to ensure they get there.

Labour do stand up for their policies but the single biggest thing they are focussed on is winning the next election so they can actually start to change lives for the better. So that means adjusting messages/aspects of policy to play the media’s game. It’s really that simple, look what happened when Labour tried the opposite back in 2017/19 and everything that’s happened since then as a result. Labour shouldn’t have put a figure on the green policies, that was their biggest mistake but I know why they did it. So they’ll now focus on the benefits of the green policies and the media will now revert back to asking ‘how will that be paid for’.

So if it won’t make any difference what’s the point in having green policies? Why are people getting so bothered about Labours £28b? I think it does matter and it’s important for Labour to have these policies because the Tories sure as hell won’t.

This is ultimately why the funding had to change because otherwise the media would harp on about how we can’t afford it, Labour would tarred with being irresponsible with the economy and people would lap it up.

So it isn’t being ditched?

It probably isn’t being ditched, just amended I would imagine.

You said: ’100% clean energy? They haven’t got a hope in hell…’ After weeks of saying how bad the crises is when a party puts a plan in place to tackle it you instantly just say nope, not doable. Sorry but with that type of attitude then of course we aren’t going to change things. As I said even if we get to 75% clean energy then it’ll be much better than nothing. I genuinely thought an ambitious target would be welcomed by someone like you.

They changing the funding for it, which was already confirmed months ago maybe if people weren’t so happy to parrot Tory attacks then it might not have happened.

Those Tory attacks worked with you.

Yet last night you were rubbishing Labour plans because doing clean energy by 2030 wasn’t possible. So your post is a bit rich.