UK Politics

3090 readers

57 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

‘I was frustrated’: The woman who told Labour it didn’t need to spend £28bn on green investment (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by RubberDuck@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rhys@lemmy.rhys.wtf 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Saving this one for posterity.

The decision to cut the £28bn pledge was very unpopular among members, though seemingly immediately forgiven by an electorate that understood it was too costly given our financial situation.

In 2029 though I wonder how we'll look back at the decision. The National Wealth Fund certainly holds a lot of promise, but will it have had enough of an impact to alleviate the disappointment of those who'd have preferred much larger direct public funding instead?

It seems Rhian-Mari Thomas may be a name worth remembering whatever the outcome.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't see what would be wrong with "overspending" for something like this. The UK is in control of its own currency and everything that is spent on green energy now is money that won't be needed to buy fossil fuel abroad or climate mitigation measures in the future.

[–] rhys@lemmy.rhys.wtf 8 points 2 months ago

I think a case could have been made for it. Borrowing to invest is allowed by the fiscal rules, and it would've been popular with a large set of the electorate. Weighing it against the electoral impact to the presentation of the party as being fiscally responsible would've been a tough needle to thread though. Many folks point to Corbyn's WASPI payout policy and nationalisation of BT as being among the key things that killed his campaign back in the day for much the same reason.

The way the lady in the article speaks though, it sounds like there is maybe a case for pursuing private funding as a better option. I've read elsewhere that even a modest public investment over the long term can encourage tons of private investment due to the certainty it provides. If the planned ~£15bn public investment ends up attracting enough private money to get up to a similar amount to £28bn and comes with tons of consequent economic activity around the edges then this may end up having been the better approach.

On the other hand, if it attracts hardly any — perhaps due to the Tories pledging to scrap GB Energy and the NWF, thereby removing the long-term certainty around the whole thing — then it may turn out to be a massively consequential and disastrous route to have taken. I think we'll have an inkling long before 2029 if that's likely to be the case.

[–] xor@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

in 2029, when millions more are dying… climate refugees are overwhelming the shores… crops are failing… tropical insects are migrating north, 28 billion will seem like a great bargain… but then it’ll cost trillions

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You think all that is going to happen in... five years?

[–] xor@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago

already currently happening so yeah, it’ll all get much worse

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

It... already started?

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk -4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

28 billion will seem like a great bargain… but then it’ll cost trillions

Are you expecting an inflation rate of 111% in the next five years? 😂

[–] br3d@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They mean it would cost more because the problem has become bigger and more complicated because it wasn't addressed early

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk -1 points 2 months ago

Yes, that part was obvious.

However hyperbolic misrepresentation doesn't help this argument. 😉

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

They're expecting nonlinearities as climate systems are more destabilised.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 months ago

the world and environment is going to be destroyed because labour listens to whatever corporate hack gives them the most money.

[–] cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

PFI? Of course not! This is GFI, it's green.