Labour has ditched a pledge to invest £28 billion-a-year on environmental projects in a major U-turn following months of uncertainty about the plan, in a move set to disappoint green campaigners.
Sir Keir Starmer confirmed that the pledge, central to Labour’s flagship Green Prosperity Plan, will be drastically scaled back with the party now set to spend £23.7 billion over the course of the next parliament.
The Conservatives had seized on the original figure as a key attack line in the run-up to an election this year, claiming Labour would ultimately have to raise taxes to meet the “unfunded spending spree”.
The party’s Warm Homes Plan, a £6 billion package of measures to improve energy efficiency, is set to be one of the casualties of the climbdown with Labour confirming that it will now take longer than originally estimated with five million homes now set to be upgraded during the first five years.
But it comes alongside plans to extend the windfall tax on oil and gas companies to the end of the next parliament, with the energy profits levy rising to 78%.
Read More: Michael Matheson in line for £12k golden goodbye after quitting over £11k iPad bill
Sir Keir sought to play down the U-turn on Thursday, telling reporters “everything on the table is staying on the table” when it comes to the Green Prosperity Plan.
The Labour leader insisted the party in power would still retain its mission to achieve clean power by 2030, stressing that it could still be achieved.
“There is nothing we have said we will do that we are now saying we won’t do.
“I don’t want to have a row about the size of a cheque. I want to have a row about the outcomes,” Sir Keir said.
Labour will hope the move will end speculation about the scale of the plan, as well as neutralising Tory attacks.
Last year, Labour adjusted the original plan by saying the spending target would likely be met in the second half of a first parliament, rather than immediately, if the party wins the next election.
The party had also insisted the pledge would be subject to its fiscal rules, which include getting debt falling as a percentage of GDP.
Confusion over the future of the policy had grown in recent weeks as some senior figures refused to refer to the £28 billion-a-year figure, while Sir Keir continued to do so as recently as Tuesday.
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves had repeatedly declined to recommit to the spending pledge, instead highlighting the need for “iron discipline” with the public finances.
She repeated her claim that she would still be Britain’s first green chancellor if Labour wins the next general election, as she and her party leader blamed the Tory stewardship of the economy and higher interest rates for the reversal.
Read More: First Minister's Questions Recap: Yousaf faces MSPs after Health Minister quits
“These policies will transform our economy in ways that are incredibly exciting and can boost growth and I am determined to do that.
“But if we made commitments to policies that we wouldn’t be able to meet, we’d end up letting people down,” she said.
The move is expected to be met with ridicule by the Tories, who have seized on what they describe as Sir Keir’s “flip-flopping” on major policies as a key attack line.
But it sparked an immediate backlash from green campaigners.
Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said: “By seriously watering down its Warm Homes Plan, the Labour Party has turned its back on the people who most urgently need these essential upgrades – the many millions of low-income households suffering from living in poorly insulated homes.
“The party’s claims that it is doubling the current Government’s spending commitment are misleading because not all the money is to be spent on insulation. Their new pledge pales in comparison to the investment required to tackle the worst homes and lift millions out of hardship.”
Greenpeace UK’s co-executive director Areeba Hami accused Sir Keir of having “caved like a house of cards in the wind”.
“Climate action, including borrowing to invest in warmer homes, remains hugely popular among voters. It would be ironic indeed if Labour’s attempt to make their manifesto ‘bombproof’ from Tory attack ended up just bombing on the doorstep instead,” she said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel