Treasury

Morning Star Editorial: What is the point of Labour? The key question

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/what-point-labour-key-question

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during a reception to celebrate St Patrick’s Day at 10 Downing Street, London, March 19, 2025

…

[T]he Starmer-Reeves agenda is entirely dictated by the needs of finance capital, mediated through the Treasury and the military.

There is no question, of course, of arms spending being affected by this renewed austerity — on the contrary it is slated to carry on rising for the next decade. Critics of the welfare cuts should not be reticent about making this connection.

Trying to protect spending on services without challenging this renewed militarism hands the Starmerites a free pass by allowing a key argument to go unchallenged.

Starmer’s priorities have a mounting number of victims. Again in Commons questions, Northern Ireland social democrat Colum Eastwood identified one, a deeply disabled constituent able to access benefits under the Tories but now facing destitution as her personal independence payments are withdrawn.

Eastwood then asked the key question. Given all that — what is the point of Labour?

It is a question millions across the country, including many who voted Labour last July, are now asking. This is governance in the interests of capital, not labour by any stretch.

The left in Labour must transition from protest to action against the government if there is to be any positive answer to Eastwood’s question. Issuing statements is not enough if Starmer and Reeves can continue to count on votes in Parliament and canvassers in the country for their anti-worker programme.

Absent that fighting approach, the logical conclusion must be that something new, articulating the values of socialism, is needed.

Original article at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/what-point-labour-key-question

Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the "hard times".
Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the “hard times”.
Continue ReadingMorning Star Editorial: What is the point of Labour? The key question

Sunak’s climate back-pedalling “just so cynical” – Cambridge economist

Spread the love

https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/net-zero-policy/sunaks-net-zero-backpedalling-just-so-cynical-cambridge-economist/?cf-view&cf-closed

Energy Monitor talks to leading climate change economist Dimitri Zenghelis about an open letter from 100 economists lamenting UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s recent net-zero U-turns.

One of the many occasions UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak uses a private jet.
One of the many occasions UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak uses a private jet.

…

So, what’s behind Sunak’s net-zero moves then?

It’s got nothing to do with cost; it’s pure politics. It’s dog-whistle stuff. He thinks he can turn this issue into an identity politics story. Hence, the “seven bins”. He’s talking about these cosmopolitan elite liberals with their fetishistic recycling (hence the seven bins) and how they’re wanting to take away our cars – from hard-working people who don’t have access to transport. It’s another “us against them” story.

It is true that if you live next to public transport in central London, you can afford to legislate against dirty vehicles, but if you live in a suburb with a terrible bus line, and you can’t afford the latest electric vehicle, yes, it is potentially quite punitive. So, this has to be done in a very careful and fair way. But just removing legislation that doesn’t impose costs sends a signal to the electorate that you’re taking a position, but to businesses that you absolutely haven’t a clue what you’re doing. Because on the one hand, you’re saying you’re committed to net zero by 2050; and on the other hand, you’re providing absolutely zero policy certainty because even when you do apply policies, you then rescind them. It’s economic short-termism.

Sunak’s playing politics with people’s livelihoods, and he’s selling it as if he’s actually trying to help people’s livelihoods instead of actually grappling with the issues of net-zero disruption and figure how we make it easier for people to adjust, how we support people in making their house as energy efficient as possible and transition to heat pumps, how we support people with bad public transport who at the moment can’t afford electric vehicles. But he’s thinking of what happened with ULEZ [Ultra Low Emission Zone] in the Uxbridge vote and what those culture wars can do to turn around his chances in the upcoming election. And if the economy suffers, well that won’t be his problem, because he probably won’t be in government by then. It’s just so cynical.

It’s hard for him to argue this is what economists are saying when both the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] and the Treasury have provided numbers that show the cost of delaying this transition is more expensive than the cost of pursuing it, as has the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC).

…

[This is only a short excerpt of the article]

https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/net-zero-policy/sunaks-net-zero-backpedalling-just-so-cynical-cambridge-economist/?cf-view&cf-closed

Continue ReadingSunak’s climate back-pedalling “just so cynical” – Cambridge economist