Get Ready For Sir Kier Flip Flop Nos 29 On His Green Agenda

What is Keir Starmer up to on the £28bn?
It looked as if the Labour leadership was planning an orderly retreat from the £28bn-a-year figure for its green investment plan, but it looks more and more as if it intends to muddle through with no commitment to borrow that much but without disowning the figure.

The latest form of words was deployed by Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, who downgraded the figure to an “ambition” on the Today programme this morning.

I understand that he wants to get rid of it, as does Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, Pat McFadden, the shadow cabinet minister running the election campaign, and Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s long-time adviser who is the top official on the election campaign team.

Yet the figure survives, because Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, fights so fiercely to keep it as a symbol of Labour standing for something. And Starmer appears unable to make up his mind between his warring subordinates.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

What is Keir Starmer up to on the £28bn?
It looked as if the Labour leadership was planning an orderly retreat from the £28bn-a-year figure for its green investment plan, but it looks more and more as if it intends to muddle through with no commitment to borrow that much but without disowning the figure.

The latest form of words was deployed by Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, who downgraded the figure to an “ambition” on the Today programme this morning.

I understand that he wants to get rid of it, as does Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, Pat McFadden, the shadow cabinet minister running the election campaign, and Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s long-time adviser who is the top official on the election campaign team.

Yet the figure survives, because Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, fights so fiercely to keep it as a symbol of Labour standing for something. And Starmer appears unable to make up his mind between his warring subordinates.

Curiouser and curiouser.

---

Not your words. Where did you lift that from without attribution?

Labour don't have to commit to anything, they are going to walk the next election because the Tories have made such a mess of everything.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/...tion_main.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Not your words. Where did you lift that from without attribution?

---

Why did you feel it was necessary to even come out with such a statement, and does it make any difference to what the content post is about FGS

It's getting harder and harder to tell Labour apart from the Conservatives every day.

When the Tories announced in October that the bankers bonus would be scrapped, Labour said this:

Darren Jones, Labour's shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the decision "tells you everything you need to know" about the priorities of the government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67206997

Now they say they support it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68145720

Apart from the general benefits of a bit of a change and some of the rhetoric on a few things is there any real difference at all between Labour and Tories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Labour don't have to commit to anything, they are going to walk the next election because the Tories have made such a mess of everything on purpose.

---

I totally agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

It's getting harder and harder to tell Labour apart from the Conservatives every day.

---

That's because there is no difference, except for a few superficial distractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

That's because there is no difference, except for a few superficial distractions.

---

It’s always been that way sadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

That's because there is no difference, except for a few superficial distractions.

---

I don't think there's likely to be much change in policies. Labour may end up being less overtly corrupt and may apologise when they stick the knife in. That's probably enough for many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Why did you feel it was necessary to even come out with such a statement, and does it make any difference to what the content post is about FGS

---

Probably for a similar reason that you felt the need to come out with your statement. If LOM has decided to anonymously post some pundit's comment I would like to know who the pundit is.

It doesn't change the comment but it does provide some additional context - and I like to know that context. Sometimes it sheds light.

I am also annoyed (along with several other regular posters) when a poster keeps passing off someone else's words and opinions as their own. It was an epidemic on *****' board. I would rather it doesn't become accepted here.

If that is alright with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Probably for a similar reason that you felt the need to come out with your statement. If LOM has decided to anonymously post some pundit's comment I would like to know who the pundit is.

It doesn't change the comment but it does provide some additional context - and I like to know that context. Sometimes it sheds light.

I am also annoyed (along with several other regular posters) when a poster keeps passing off someone else's words and opinions as their own. It was an epidemic on *****' board. I would rather it doesn't become accepted here.

If that is alright with you?

---

Why on earth would you become annoyed when it’s irrelevant, it’s a football message-board not a psychology class where everything has to be referenced.

I’m sorry but all opinions are welcome regardless of its source content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

I don't think there's likely to be much change in policies. Labour may end up being less overtly corrupt and may apologise when they stick the knife in. That's probably enough for many people.

---

I expect marginal differences of policy and behaviour.

But a slight improvement in some areas (in others there will be no change at all) is better than more of the same.

For some people that slight improvement may be life changing. It was with the Blair/Brown government despite the war crimes, the toadying to Murdoch and Ecclestone, PFI and all the other shit. There were positives with housing, child care, workers rights, mildly redistributive budgets, devolution etc.

I don't think a Starmer government would have that many positives - and I despise the man - but it will be better than the Tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Why on earth would you become annoyed when it’s irrelevant, it’s a football message-board not a psychology class where everything has to be referenced.

I’m sorry but all opinions are welcome regardless of its source content.

---

Clearly it's not alright with you. Let's move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I expect marginal differences of policy and behaviour.

But a slight improvement in some areas (in others there will be no change at all) is better than more of the same.

For some people that slight improvement may be life changing. It was with the Blair/Brown government despite the war crimes, the toadying to Murdoch and Ecclestone, PFI and all the other shit. There were positives with housing, child care, workers rights, mildly redistributive budgets, devolution etc.

I don't think a Starmer government would have that many positives - and I despise the man - but it will be better than the Tories.

---

And I understand why people will vote for Starmer's Labour because of this. My view is that, when you award Starmer's and Blair's version of Labour with electoral success, you allow them to say "See? This is the sort of socialism the British people want". So you get Corbyn ostracised by his own party and a continual shift to the right so that Labour and Conservatives are almost indistinguishable. And maybe that model of the Labour Party is indeed what the British people want. But it isn't what I want and I won't lend them my vote to bolster their claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

And I understand why people will vote for Starmer's Labour because of this. My view is that, when you award Starmer's and Blair's version of Labour with electoral success, you allow them to say "See? This is the sort of socialism the British people want". So you get Corbyn ostracised by his own party and a continual shift to the right so that Labour and Conservatives are almost indistinguishable. And maybe that model of the Labour Party is indeed what the British people want. But it isn't what I want and I won't lend them my vote to bolster their claims.

---

I understand that and sympathise with that view - and am on the cusp of going the same way. But I am still, just, by my fingernails holding on to the view that as someone is going to hold governmental power I prefer it to be the ones who might do a bit less damage and a bit more good (however fine the margins).

I also still believe that a Labour Party that has organisational links to the labour movement can have its behaviour and policy choices modified from below - sometimes. I respect some of its MPs and many of its activists. It is not the same party I joined in the late 1970s (and again in the mid 1980s and late 2010s - 31 years all told) - ripping up Clause 4, turning conference into an annual rally, purging the membership and relying or corporate donors and lobbyists for funding and direction have gutted Labour - but the last vestiges remain (just) of the party it used to be.

Not sure why he is flip flopping so much, the Labour conference and their union bosses have wet his agenda for him.
Maybe he now realised being in govt is a bit than just carping from the side lines like an old pantomime dame after a few guns
A bit like what nick clegg ended up being. If you suns don’t add up you don’t win the election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Labour don't have to commit to anything, they are going to walk the next election because the Tories have made such a mess of everything.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/...tion_main.html

---

Whilst I agree that it likely makes sense not to bury themselves. The state of the country now means a Corbyn 17 or 19 manifesto without Corbyn in charge would absolutely walk it - they can commit to bold policies without risking their position imo.

Unfortunately reevesonomics (/standard British establishment economics) is not going to fix Britain's problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

When the Tories announced in October that the bankers bonus would be scrapped, Labour said this:

Darren Jones, Labour's shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the decision "tells you everything you need to know" about the priorities of the government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67206997

Now they say they support it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68145720

Apart from the general benefits of a bit of a change and some of the rhetoric on a few things is there any real difference at all between Labour and Tories?

---

It was a meme policy that probably doesn't achieve anything but ditching their opposition to scrapping it looks shady, either they believe in the symbolism/intention of it or they don't. If they think it is pointless because there are ways to get around it and that is why they aren't going to oppose it then they should say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

Not sure why he is flip flopping so much, the Labour conference and their union bosses have wet his agenda for him.
Maybe he now realised being in govt is a bit than just carping from the side lines like an old pantomime dame after a few guns
A bit like what nick clegg ended up being. If you suns don’t add up you don’t win the election

---

'union bosses' is such a cliche Tory attack line that implies the party is controlled by some kind of shady cabal. Essentially you are talking about a bit of influence held by a few very public figures who are democratically elected by millions of ordinary working people.

The fact that this line is pushed by a PM who has had his bollocks cut off by the right of his party because he had to make a deal with them to avoid losing a members vote, is frankly ridiculous. The fact that some people have eaten it up and parrot it, is even more ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

It was a meme policy that probably doesn't achieve anything but ditching their opposition to scrapping it looks shady, either they believe in the symbolism/intention of it or they don't. If they think it is pointless because there are ways to get around it and that is why they aren't going to oppose it then they should say that.

---

I'm beginning to come around to the idea that this is a brilliant election strategy to deal with Tory and Right Wing Press critique. Basically, if Labour are attacked on any policy....then change it....scrap it....ditch it. Create a set of new principles. It's really clever when you think about it. I may rejoin if that's the case. It's the only thing that I'm left clinging onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

'union bosses' is such a cliche Tory attack line that implies the party is controlled by some kind of shady cabal. Essentially you are talking about a bit of influence held by a few very public figures who are democratically elected by millions of ordinary working people.

The fact that this line is pushed by a PM who has had his bollocks cut off by the right of his party because he had to make a deal with them to avoid losing a members vote, is frankly ridiculous. The fact that some people have eaten it up and parrot it, is even more ridiculous.

---

:thumbup:

At the last election in 2019 labour registered donations of 5.4 million, of that over 5 million came from trade unions (fullfact.org)
So yeah trade unions definitely don’t set policy 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

At the last election in 2019 labour registered donations of 5.4 million, of that over 5 million came from trade unions (fullfact.org)
So yeah trade unions definitely don’t set policy ��

---

The Labour Party raised £5.6m from large private donations in the second quarter of 2023 alone. Trades Unions have been reducing their contributions as the party ingores them and ignores the votes of conference. Under Corbyn most funding came from the expanded membership subscription base (since then a quarter of a million members have left or been pushed out) and small scale individual donations. Now it is corporate and rich donor funding - and that is where you should look to see how policy is set!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The Labour Party raised £5.6m from large private donations in the second quarter of 2023 alone. Trades Unions have been reducing their contributions as the party ingores them and ignores the votes of conference. Under Corbyn most funding came from the expanded membership subscription base (since then a quarter of a million members have left or been pushed out) and small scale individual donations. Now it is corporate and rich donor funding - and that is where you should look to see how policy is set!

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The Labour Party raised £5.6m from large private donations in the second quarter of 2023 alone. Trades Unions have been reducing their contributions as the party ingores them and ignores the votes of conference. Under Corbyn most funding came from the expanded membership subscription base (since then a quarter of a million members have left or been pushed out) and small scale individual donations. Now it is corporate and rich donor funding - and that is where you should look to see how policy is set!

---

Large business only gets involved when they want the next party in Govt to make policies they want. Just like they did under Blair and dodgy Mandelson. Which is why nothing ever changes regardless of who is in power.

Nearly flipped Rachel of the Reeves struggled to answer the £28 billion green spend commitment ?

Apprantly since its was announced there's been 28 recorded changes / flips/ avoidance blurting by (Sir?) Kier
( good old lefty / anti royalist alledged Marxist, still not handed his Sir title albeit its been stripped off social media ) Poor version of a great ex lord and real socalist Mr Tony Benn .

Feckless hypocritical lot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The Labour Party raised £5.6m from large private donations in the second quarter of 2023 alone. Trades Unions have been reducing their contributions as the party ingores them and ignores the votes of conference. Under Corbyn most funding came from the expanded membership subscription base (since then a quarter of a million members have left or been pushed out) and small scale individual donations. Now it is corporate and rich donor funding - and that is where you should look to see how policy is set!

---

The as you call it (.expanded membership) was built on a stupid Ed Miliband where you could donate the value of a Mars bar to become a member .
That attracted the loops.
Even communist party decided not to stand and put power behind JC ( not Jesus Christ BTW)
That put the worse leader Labour has ever had in saw a collapse of faith from electorate .( handing 80 seat whitewash to Boris).
As soon as fee was raised they fled back to thier burrows and little magazines, blogs to moan and groan and resort to dressing like festival goers and matching / glueing themselves to what ever they could find .

Unions have are are certainly effecting Labour policy and covertly with Labour trying to pressure the UK with excessive strikes and demands over the decades of Tory power

Unions fund s / works for Labour in many covert ways including sponsorship of MP's , property , events, fundraising demonstration , manipulation of workers..

I attended many union anc Labour conferences for a good decade and it stunk of old boys ( yes old boys, not ladles and ordinary members they were not allowed to the top event or table ) the dreadful sexism and anti semstism was there to see and touch at the conference entry stalls and funded fringe events.

Thier behaviour at the evening events were quite eye opening to say the least , at least the free booze and ladies added to the ego's of the elected elderly large bellued ( white )MP

I left Labour because of its hypocrisy, racist , politcal gestures, antisemitic values bullying , aresment , anti western values just to garner muselim voters , keeping talented women at bay and away from leadership.

If you vote for them just because you hate the others just consider tge abovev I'd suggest that's borderline hypocrisy.

You can PM me if you want and I can explain my experiences, you don't have to agree but try and be a bit less disparaging it's a bad socalist trait when hunting In packs safe on a site like this...

Your clearly an intelligent person however I note your very patience with others whose terminologies, rants language borders on discrimination , guess if they had right leaning views, languages you'd be after em on your limited inclusiveness for all socalist bandwagon 😉

Listening to John barnes on 5live today sing rapper’s delight, May Sir keir could do his version
I said flip flop flipperty flop
And a flip flip flipperty flop….