… KEIR STARMER is preparing to scrap social care reforms and backtrack on proposals to abolish the House of Lords in the lead up to polling day, reports claim.
… Keir’s initial plans to abolish the Lords, informed by Gordon Brown’s constitutional review, recommended replacing the chamber with a democratic assembly of nations and regions.
However a report in The Observer claims the party is moving away from plans of making a complete rehaul a priority.
Instead … Keir, who has previously described the House of Lords as “indefensible,” will reportedly look to enact far less sweeping changes, such as capping the number of peers, and empowering a body to prevent “inappropriate” people from being granted peerages.
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.
…
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).
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who was banned from standing as a candidate for the party earlier this year, has taken an almighty swipe at Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, after it was confirmed that the pair would not look to implement a wealth tax if elected into office.
…
Keir Starmer also confirmed last month that would retain the two-child benefit limit – despite growing calls from poverty campaigners for the cap to be abandoned. The controversial stance has divided politicians within the Labour Party.
It’s another questionable policy u-turn from Starmer, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by Jeremy Corbyn. The two-time Prime Ministerial candidate ripped into Sir Keir, saying that a wealth tax could easily fund an extension to the two-child cap.
Corbyn also urged his successor to ‘side with those in need’:
“With the money raised from a 1-2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, we could afford to scrap the two-child benefit cap SEVENTEEN times over. Politics is about choices — and we should be on the side of those in need, not those with greed.” | Jeremy Corbyn
