February 8, 2024 - 4:00pm
Great parties need great causes. None are greater than rebuilding Britain — Labour’s current ambition — except perhaps saving the planet from the ravages of the climate crisis. Labour had a policy that addressed both challenges: its Green Prosperity Plan, which involved £28 billion a year on decarbonising the economy while reindustrialising the country. Until today, at least, when the party announced after much speculation that it would be ditching its flagship green scheme.
There were issues with the plan. For one thing, when blue-collar voters hear the word “green” they reach for their wallets fearing incoming taxes. For another, politics should be about purpose rather than process — never fight on a big number, and argue for the impact on voters’ lives.
Yet it served as a central and visible tentpole of Labour’s industrial strategy — and was a clear answer to the question “how will you jumpstart the economy?”
Labour’s leadership is finally walking away from the imposing figure while remaining committed to the individual policies that will make the UK a clean energy superpower. These include the proposed state-owned energy company Great British Energy, as well as the Warm Homes programme for retrofitting residences with insulation to cut household energy bills.
This week’s U-turn is a defensive move which reflects a “small target” strategy. It is an approach designed to minimise the political attacks that the Tories can make in a general election campaign, which for all intents and purposes is already underway.
This would be understandable if Labour were under any pressure from the Tories. But the Opposition has had a poll lead for the last 800 days. Since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, the Tory Party has failed to exceed 30% support while Labour support has never dipped below 40%.
There is clearly a settled will among voters. They want a change from the present administration, which makes it all the more striking that Labour is allowing the Conservatives to impose their economic frame on the political debate.
While there are legitimate questions about Labour’s fiscal strategy — progressive parties always have to prove that they can be trusted to handle national finances — there is no legitimacy in those questions being asked by Sunak, whose predecessor in Downing Street blew up the economy and imposed a “moron risk premium” on UK interest rates. The idea that a man who lost the Tory leadership to Liz Truss has anything to say about politics and economics is risible, and he should be laughed out of British politics.
Instead, Keir Starmer has allowed the Tories to memory-hole Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget. Had that been a Labour budget, we would not have heard the end of it for decades. George Osborne mercilessly repeated an untruth that Gordon Brown rather than the Global Financial Crisis crashed the economy. Labour should show the same vigour and energy in putting forward the truth that the party of Liz Truss has nothing to say about the economy. Nothing, that is, except “sorry”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIn August 2022 this author, in Unherd, wrote an article explaining “Why Labour should fear Liz Truss”. Sunak opposed Liz Truss’s education, tax and energy policies, but John McTernan thought they could be electorally potent. The idea that he has anything to say about politics and economics is risible, and he should be laughed out of British politics.
Precisely, well said sir.
Superb!
Brilliant riposte.
This flip flop doesn’t surprise me in the least and is totally consistent with his history. Starmer seems utterly incapable of holding on to an idea or an ideology, God knows how he became leader. Oh yeah, I remember now – he lied on everything.
He has effectively and ruthlessly brought the Labour Party under control having said whatever was necessary to win the leadership.
He’s now saying whatever he thinks necessary to win the election. What he will do with that power is unknowable from any of his utterances.
He’s just following the tried and tested New Labour playbook: just get into power and give all the plum jobs to your flatmates.
So Labour have back-pedalled on plans to reduce our electricity bills, ‘with cheaper zero-carbon electricity’?
How is that a vote-winner?
He doesn’t need to “win” votes – the electorate have, by and large, made their minds up.
All he’s doing now is rowing back on anything that might prove too difficult to deliver in government.
I can’t see a problem here at all.
They have changed their minds on this,(and almost everything else) so often, it is impossible to know what they really think. This is just the latest change. There will be another along shortly.
Sir Starmer has principles in the Groucho Way. If you don’t like them, he has plenty of others.
But eventually a real crisis comes along where you have to make an immediate decision based on your gut instinct and beliefs. There isn’t time for Starmer’s “yes but, no but” Vicky Pollard approach in those situations.
I disagree. Starmer is highly principled. Unfortunately unwavering careerism and expediency are not the ideal principles for a leader at this time.
Sadly , neither party seems to have a clear, cohesive vision for the country.
“Labour’s leadership is finally walking away from the imposing figure while remaining committed to the individual policies that will make the UK a clean energy superpower.”
It’s interesting how every woke, middling country in the world thinks it will become a clean energy superpower – Britain, Germany, Spain, Australia, Canada etc etc etc. They can’t all become green superpowers.
Perfectly put.
It doesn’t sound like a very profitable prospect if everyone’s chasing it. Not saying that we shouldn’t do some of this. Simply that it’s unlikely to be the economic nirvana many claim.
We’re a “tea superpower” and a “politeness superpower”.
Tremble before us, ye nations of the Earth.
(As for the “green superpower” stuff, no nation on Earth has ever been short of BS. We should just run our economies on that.)
What a hoot! Are we really surprised at Starmer’s abdication of the teen student ‘green is the new red – the ticket to a State Energy Leyland and old fashioned Socialist spend & Gosplannery’ policy? Hardly. Mr 2 Ref Starmer does not even respect the ballot box and peoples mandate. But do not be fooled. He and his muzzled leftist wolves DO share one knee bending ideology which threatens far greater social harm. It is the extension of the race and gender equality mania which has pulsed victim/oppressor poison into our national life for 15 years. Yet more DEI legislation is to come from Labour, marinated in their wider devotion to suffocating bureaucratic regulation and excess judicial control, their mean spirited class envy, indifference to the realities of organic communal bonds and complete disavowal of the principles of self reliance enterprise and wealth creation. The Manifesto is as blank and cynical as Bidens ‘We are not Them/Him’ electoral playback. But that ideological 0.09% is already unmasked. It will be like free prescriptions for super opiates. Fear it. Fear them.
It is hard to take seriously an article which claims that Liz Truss “blew up the economy” in 50 days. Her proposed policies were never enacted !
As for Gordon Brown – he did let government spending run massively out of control. All in the name of “investment”.
Dare I suggest that this is a moron risk article (to reuse the author’s own words) ?
“[…] saving the planet from the ravages of the climate crisis.”
Even if one accepts the dubious proposition of a “climate crisis”, it’s difficult to see how a country smaller than a postage stamp can “save the planet”. (The latter phrase, incidentally, is surely the most excruciatingly annoying in modern politics.)
If one wants to know why parties should be wary of costly Green commitments, maybe have a look at continental Europe?