7 ms·

Labour Party in the UK just announced a manifesto that commits to rapid reductions in emissions paid by taxes including a windfall tax on oil and gas producers,

by ximeng 7y ago

Labour Party in the UK just announced a manifesto that commits to rapid reductions in emissions paid by taxes including a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, so we will soon see.

rayiner 7y ago
Electing Labor will almost certainly hurt the UK economy more by 2100 than will an RCP 8.5 scenario.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Cobblers. Haven't seen this election's manifesto yet, but in 2017 their manifesto was judged more financially credible - by the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) - than that of the bloody Tories.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Corbyn is an old socialist who opposed removing Clause IV from labor’s platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-conference-common-ownership-a9112161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-...
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a Tory manifesto is more than just BoJo or May. Our Prime Ministers do not get US presidential - i.e. 18th century British monarchical - powers. Brexit reveals there are some major failings with the system and how it can be hijacked by a focused minority group (e.g. the ERG), but it is not subject to the major US weakness to the {right|wrong} individual.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They've selected policies intended to resonate with the majority of working people, rather than trying to out-Tory the Tories but with some social spending as New Labour was. The emptiness of New Labour, and the costs to our public services of Public Private Partnerships, that we will be paying for the next 20-50 years under those contracts has rather destroyed that as a vote winning stratagem. They threw out the baby with the bath water when getting rid of overly strong, and political union affiliations... The core premise of constraining capitalist excess, of aiming for redistribution, or "fairness" still resonates with a UK electorate. Despite 40 years of neoliberalism. I suspect the party still hasn't quite found the right balance to get elected, and Corbyn individually is quite a huge negative for the party electorally, but their policies are interesting. Some of them feel desperately needed and long overdue. The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. :) Shitty leaders lose elections far more often than good leaders win them. > American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers It's surprisingly close and relates to Congress much as 18th century monarchy related to Parliament. > the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large. True, but that again highlights the difference. A UK PM is often a markedly different MP on Parliamentary track record and voting to their administration.
        rayiner 7y ago
        I disagree with almost all of that. But particularly this: > The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. How can you say that Tories "failed?" As you say, Labor had to become "Tories but with some social spending" in order to win any elections. When your opponent needs to adopt much of your platform to be viable, isn't that winning? Same thing happened in the U.S. after Reagan. For 25 years they had to be "Republicans with some social liberalism." I call that winning.
- mikojan 7y ago
  ok boomer
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Yes, Corbyn is winning among a demographic that doesn’t remember when Labor was an actual socialist party and had to completely reinvent itself (a move Corbyn opposed) in order to even be viable. A demographic that hasn’t learned the lessons that led to that.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      I and many of my friends are old enough to remember Labour of the pre-Thatcher years. Before I continue I should point out I consider myself "of the right" - somewhere around where the old One-Nation Tory majority used to be, with the likes of Heseltine, Clarke, etc, or even a little further right. Even Cameron claimed to be one-nation until he dreamed up a referendum to subdue the extremist wing of the party... Most of that friend group are similar "natural Tories". Business owners, and comfortably off rather than all billionaire hedge fund owners or trade unionists and manual workers. 9 out of 10 Labour policies resonate well with us as a rejection of the clear excess and mistakes of neoliberalism. Of the brutal treatment of disabled, poor, and society generally. Of the application of market to utterly irrelevant things. Not as a vote to return to the Labour's Trotskyite Militant Tendency and idiocy of the seventies. We don't need to reinvent history and blame a demographic that knows no better... I should probably add that for some the 1 in 10 policy that we dislike can sometimes be a vote killer or of veto level. :) Most of the seventies problems can be explained by a) Nixon abandoning the Gold Standard and disassembly of Bretton Woods, both of which were hugely inflationary and b) the oil crisis. The Conservatives did no better in that era, and often markedly worse - fiscally, on labour relations, on balance of payments, even on defence. Heath did so poorly in the last administration that we had a three day week. Worse than Callaghan's later Winter of Discontent that brought Thatcher. Interestingly Callaghan's Labour were governing strongly in opposition to the unions during that winter...
    - jfengel 7y ago
      The world has changed a lot since New Labour. Not that Corbyn is necessarily offering what the world needs now, but the lessons that led to New Labour do need to be questioned. The Internet age has brought both corporations and wealthy people a lot of dominance at the cost of the young and the poor, so "socialism" doesn't have the stigma that it used to among some demographics. The Tory move to the right could give Labour a lot of room to maneuver as an actual left-wing party, rather than seeking centrist votes. As I said, Corbyn himself may not be the one to lead it there, but I'd suggest that the 90s were a long time ago and it may be time to find some new lessons.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Yes the economy is more important than widespread famine, sea level rise, and social unrest.

by ximeng 7y ago

Labour Party in the UK just announced a manifesto that commits to rapid reductions in emissions paid by taxes including a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, so we will soon see.

rayiner 7y ago

Electing Labor will almost certainly hurt the UK economy more by 2100 than will an RCP 8.5 scenario.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Cobblers. Haven't seen this election's manifesto yet, but in 2017 their manifesto was judged more financially credible - by the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) - than that of the bloody Tories.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Corbyn is an old socialist who opposed removing Clause IV from labor’s platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-conference-common-ownership-a9112161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a Tory manifesto is more than just BoJo or May. Our Prime Ministers do not get US presidential - i.e. 18th century British monarchical - powers. Brexit reveals there are some major failings with the system and how it can be hijacked by a focused minority group (e.g. the ERG), but it is not subject to the major US weakness to the {right|wrong} individual.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They've selected policies intended to resonate with the majority of working people, rather than trying to out-Tory the Tories but with some social spending as New Labour was. The emptiness of New Labour, and the costs to our public services of Public Private Partnerships, that we will be paying for the next 20-50 years under those contracts has rather destroyed that as a vote winning stratagem. They threw out the baby with the bath water when getting rid of overly strong, and political union affiliations... The core premise of constraining capitalist excess, of aiming for redistribution, or "fairness" still resonates with a UK electorate. Despite 40 years of neoliberalism. I suspect the party still hasn't quite found the right balance to get elected, and Corbyn individually is quite a huge negative for the party electorally, but their policies are interesting. Some of them feel desperately needed and long overdue. The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. :) Shitty leaders lose elections far more often than good leaders win them. > American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers It's surprisingly close and relates to Congress much as 18th century monarchy related to Parliament. > the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large. True, but that again highlights the difference. A UK PM is often a markedly different MP on Parliamentary track record and voting to their administration.
        rayiner 7y ago
        I disagree with almost all of that. But particularly this: > The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. How can you say that Tories "failed?" As you say, Labor had to become "Tories but with some social spending" in order to win any elections. When your opponent needs to adopt much of your platform to be viable, isn't that winning? Same thing happened in the U.S. after Reagan. For 25 years they had to be "Republicans with some social liberalism." I call that winning.
mikojan 7y ago
ok boomer
- rayiner 7y ago
  Yes, Corbyn is winning among a demographic that doesn’t remember when Labor was an actual socialist party and had to completely reinvent itself (a move Corbyn opposed) in order to even be viable. A demographic that hasn’t learned the lessons that led to that.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I and many of my friends are old enough to remember Labour of the pre-Thatcher years. Before I continue I should point out I consider myself "of the right" - somewhere around where the old One-Nation Tory majority used to be, with the likes of Heseltine, Clarke, etc, or even a little further right. Even Cameron claimed to be one-nation until he dreamed up a referendum to subdue the extremist wing of the party... Most of that friend group are similar "natural Tories". Business owners, and comfortably off rather than all billionaire hedge fund owners or trade unionists and manual workers. 9 out of 10 Labour policies resonate well with us as a rejection of the clear excess and mistakes of neoliberalism. Of the brutal treatment of disabled, poor, and society generally. Of the application of market to utterly irrelevant things. Not as a vote to return to the Labour's Trotskyite Militant Tendency and idiocy of the seventies. We don't need to reinvent history and blame a demographic that knows no better... I should probably add that for some the 1 in 10 policy that we dislike can sometimes be a vote killer or of veto level. :) Most of the seventies problems can be explained by a) Nixon abandoning the Gold Standard and disassembly of Bretton Woods, both of which were hugely inflationary and b) the oil crisis. The Conservatives did no better in that era, and often markedly worse - fiscally, on labour relations, on balance of payments, even on defence. Heath did so poorly in the last administration that we had a three day week. Worse than Callaghan's later Winter of Discontent that brought Thatcher. Interestingly Callaghan's Labour were governing strongly in opposition to the unions during that winter...
  - jfengel 7y ago
    The world has changed a lot since New Labour. Not that Corbyn is necessarily offering what the world needs now, but the lessons that led to New Labour do need to be questioned. The Internet age has brought both corporations and wealthy people a lot of dominance at the cost of the young and the poor, so "socialism" doesn't have the stigma that it used to among some demographics. The Tory move to the right could give Labour a lot of room to maneuver as an actual left-wing party, rather than seeking centrist votes. As I said, Corbyn himself may not be the one to lead it there, but I'd suggest that the 90s were a long time ago and it may be time to find some new lessons.
triceratops 7y ago
Yes the economy is more important than widespread famine, sea level rise, and social unrest.