Am I going to like the Labour manifesto? Yes, I suspect so. And that's because at its core - like the Green Party manifesto I referred to yesterday, is the Green New Deal. I know Labour calls it the Green Industrial Revolution for reasons that escape almost everyone, but let's not worry about such details. This is the Green New Deal and Labur's commitment looks, amongst nationwide parties, to be second only to the Greens and way ahead of the rather party offering from the LibDems, whatever their good words on the issue represent.
As the Guardian notes:
Labour is promising to create 1 million green jobs in the energy sector and through nationwide home refurbishments in a bid to tackle the climate crisis.
Environmental protection is expected to be a central theme of Jeremy Corbyn's general election manifesto, launched in Birmingham today, with new jobs promised through insulation upgrades, offshore wind and carbon capture developments.
They add:
The new jobs — billed as an essential part of Labour's green industrial revolution - will also come from hydrogen and tidal energy expansion, port infrastructure, tree planting, flood defences and plastics recycling.
They estimate creating 98,000 jobs by building an additional 7,000 offshore and 2,000 onshore wind turbines. A further 450,000 jobs would be generated by upgrading every home in Britain by 2030 with measures to reduce emissions. Hydrogen production focused in Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-east would create 265,000 jobs and 195,000 jobs from electric car production.
Nine new recycling sites could see the hiring of 25,000 people.
As to cost:
Labour said the shift to a greener economy would involve the set up of a £250bn green transformation fund dedicated to renewable and low-carbon energy and transport, biodiversity and environmental restoration. Their National Investment Bank is planned to provide £250 billion of lending over a 10 year period for businesses showing a willingness to decarbonise the economy.
This is less than I expected. The commitment is not as fulsome as I'd want. It's not as much as the crisis demands. But it's an excellent start for a number of reasons.
First, this shows Labour does get the climate crisis.
Second, it shows it is willing to commit substantial resources to change.
Third, for millions this will provide long term, secure, well-paid employment.
Fourth, the multiplier effects of this will be massive.
Fifth, other countries would be forced to follow.
Sixth, this scale of economic activity that is pro-Green will provide a massive boost to the public finances: more taxes will be paid.
Seventh, this will create large numbers of new private sector jobs in innovative areas where we have a real chance of becoming world-leading as a result.
Eighth, this whole plan is enormously supportive of sterling by promoting import substitution and promoting exports.
I could go on. But this is, in summary, the plan we need.
It's taken a decade to get here from the first Green New Deal plan in 2008. But we're arriving.
Unless, of course, we get a Tory government. When none of this will happen.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think the name “Green Industrial Revolution” is a smart piece of branding by Labour.
That makes it far harder for its opponents to smear it as an irrelevant ‘wish list’ agenda of the fanciful loony left and environmentalists.
This is about fighting climate change, modernising and future-proofing our industries, creating new economic activity and safeguarding us by reducing our energy dependence upon foreign (and often nefarious) powers.
Referring to the industrial revolution anchors it in something that people can relate to, both in terms of the scale of the project, but also what it actually means. ‘Green new deal’ is very vague language for your average person who may have only a passing interest in Keynes or efforts to tackle climate change. But everyone knows what the industrial revolution was, and look back on it with pride, to a time when Britain (for all of its many faults) was at the cutting edge of technology.
I have to say I disagree with you for once
This is about so much more than industry, just as the New Deal was
Lets hope there is no backtracking on these commitments and that the Labour right-wing candidates/MPs do not try and put a spanners in the works that prevents these vital changes to avert climate catastrophe.
Yes Richard Labour’s plans are very good for starters. I know some would like to see more radicalism, but policy is always work-in-progress never the finished article. There will I am sure be plenty of scope for learning lessons on the way and readjusting proposals in the light of experience. That’s the point where Labour’s democratic policy agenda kicks in and where we have the opportunity to put in our six-pence worth.
Labour takes great pride in the fact that it’s manifesto is completely costed. The Tories have no such ambition, since none of their election pledges will be delivered. The Tories constituency is not the Tory voters it is only their billionaire backers. Their billionaire backers have no appetite for any shift of income or wealth towards the 99%.
Hi Richard,
It’s a good feeling to be excited about the possibilities for political change.
I am glad that Labour have embraced this policy, although a little disappointed that they have watered down the conference commitment to net zero by 2030.
However that is nitpicking when one compares the Conservative and Labour offering on the environment/climate change.
Hi Richard,
I wonder why no-one mentions the parallels with the defence industry when talking about implementing the Green New Deal.
For all its (many) flaws, there is a well-structured system in place for delivering large projects funded by the government, and it ensures that the entire process is kept within the UK, from design to implementation through to manufacturing, installation and servicing.
In some cases due to security implications only UK nationals can work on certain projects. I don’t agree that new green jobs should be kept for UK nationals only (and hopefully they’ll be so many jobs it won’t matter) but even a watered-down version of this may help persuade people that the Green New Deal will provide good solid long-term employment for the entire nation.
Look at the industry that has grown up around Cheltenham due to locating GCHQ there. This could be replicated all over the country with different Green industries, focusing on the regions that need it most. The public/private sector balance could be managed better than the current defence industry.
Processes, procedures and standards could be reused to get up and running quickly.
It shifts the frame slightly from the environmental aspect to the jobs and industry aspect, while not losing sight of why it is so important.
In the end, it may not be necessary as public opinion is shifting already, but it could help provide a different angle to the Green New Deal that may appeal to a lot of people, and help speed things up.
Green Industrial Revolution – what I was taught at school as the Industrial revolution is now referred to by many as the First Industrial Revolution.. we’ve had three apparently, so let’s make the next one Green !
1. Steam / mecahnical
2. Science / mass production
3. Digital.
4. <-
First link I came across :
https://trailhead.salesforce.com/en/content/learn/modules/learn-about-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/meet-the-three-industrial-revolutions
It would be nice if it happened but in Scotland we know what Labours (and the Tories) promises are worth so all I can suggest is: Don’t hold your breath!
Forgive me for saying this but I did not like the sound of Corbyn’s launch today and nor have I liked the ‘for the many, not the few’ mantra either.
In a time of rampant division in the country, the Left needs to tone itself down and look at more broad based sloganeering to appeal to voters.
Too many people aspire to be well off. To go around telling potential supporters who approve of wealth that you are somehow going to target it or that wealth is wrong seems a bit silly to me.
But worse of all, is pitting one section of the public against the other. Haven’t we had enough of this under the Tories – its just the same isn’t it?
Labour would be better pouring scorn on the Tory Party itself – not its supporters – but its record – pointing out and reminding us what exactly nearly 10 years of these bastards has actually done to us.
Because what the Tories have done to this country is scandalous and unforgiveable.
@ PSR – “… nor have I liked the ‘for the many, not the few’ mantra either.”
I concur with all you say. The LP has missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to position itself as the party of national unity, urging the nation as a whole to coalesce around a vision that will create a secure and fairer future for everyone’s children & grand children. I presume that’s what it thinks it is doing but, as you suggest, it’s not. While Corbyn’s demeanour appears noticeably less arrogant than BJ’s (not a huge challenge), he should be more overtly distancing himself from the divisive and spiteful rhetoric spewed out from CCHQ. It’s a seriously missed opportunity because the environmental crisis uniquely bridges all social ‘castes’ (other than the flat-earthers) and could be used strategically to leverage in policies which, at other times, would be considered too radical.
I’ve no idea how the LP’s strategy is devised and tactically managed – or by whom – but, IMO, the party & leadership are poorly advised, which is a tragedy for the country as it provides the Tories with much more leeway to ‘own’ the debate than their appalling track record in any way merits. Arguably the Green Party does a better job with just 1 MP than Labour does with 243. Sadly that is irrelevant. If only we had PR what a superior political dynamic & debate we’d be having.
It’s looking as though the best we can hope for now is a minority Johnson administration in a C & S agreement with the regressive LibDems. But I’m not even that optimistic 🙁
I wish I could be that optimistic
On the subject of the IFS, it has become enormously clear to me that all they are interested in is maintaining the status quo.
All they seem to do is speculate endlessly on the consequences of ANY new ideas and just spread worry and concern. Of course any new ideas will result in unintended and unintended consequences because they are, well – new. So why bleat about them as the IFS does? They are so static in their outlook it’s not true.
Wholly agreed
Bit let’s be clear that this is the result of their poor economic thinking
Economists assume we are in equilibrium now – i.e. optimality. All deviation is then sub-optimal
IFS reveal the trait par excellence
The IFS are always introduced as an independent source of economic thinking. The IFS refuses to reveal their source of funding. Secrecy is an abusers charter. They only ever peddle a right wing viewpoint. The BBC should balance their contribution with an alternative point of view – Richards for starters and an example.
Labour’s brilliant manifesto could be commented on ‘how is all this extra income to be spent’ instead of ‘ how will all this spending be paid for’. But of course that would require a knowledge of double entry bookkeeping. It appears that this comprehension is way beyond the capabilities of many commentators and politicians. Like MMT it appears a step too far.
I too have problem with the IFS
But I have always thought their funding fairly transparent
Much is from major research foundations e.g. Nuffield and the ESRC
Hi Richard,
Is it not amazing that the IFS are allowed to go on television and rubbish the Labour spending and tax plans in the vaguest possible terms – no detail of any kind was produced – in fact it just amounted to “we don’t really like it”!
Reading between the lines, the only flexible response that they are apparently imagining to something like this being implemented is the behaviour change of the rich to avoid tax. No acknowledgement of the amount that will come straight back to the government in tax, no account of the multiplier effect, no realization that creating quality jobs and increasing pay will give a large demand boost to the economy. I despair.
I also like the Labour Party Manifesto. But although public transport is mentioned, it seems to me that there is too much fixation on electric cars, which could mean that the motor industry will once again lead the country up a blind alley.
Electric cars will not solve congestion, will not solve the non tail pipe emission pollution problems, and there are not enough resources in the world to produce all the battery capacity required.
See study by the Nature History Museum
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/june/we-need-more-metals-and-elements-reach-uks-greenhouse-goals.html
On top of this there is a huge carbon footprint associated not only with producing batteries, but also with disposing of them at the end of their life.
There must clearly be a massive investment in public transport, trains, trams, buses ( powered by electricity and non fossil fuels, eg hydrogen, methane), and safe cycling and walking routes.
Not only investing in them, but making them affordable to use. But to be fair, some of this is there, but I feel needs being given more emphasis.
I agree – electric cars are not our future. At least, not the electric version of existing cars we are being offered now
@David
Regarding electric cars and batteries.
I think that the possibilities for having electricity delivered to vehicles via pick up in the road is promising/possible. Sweden have been experimenting with something like this for lorries.
I still agree that public transport needs to be expanded as, even if the vehicles are electric, mass transport is still very much more efficient than private cars.
The price point for public transport needs to be got right, along with its overall effectiveness and reach. This will drive its adoption over private cars.
Richard,
We have a problem and that problem is the IFS. The media seem to be using IFS and Paul Johnson for everything. Richard, I would like you to explain how the IFS have become experts on all economics, whether micro or macro. IFS have criticised labours spending as being impossible. That it will mean tax rises on the working class. How can we counter such a powerful organization going beyond their expertise.
Public do not know macroeconomics. We need to educate.
I’ll try to come back on this
Not today
Just on the subject of hydrogen production, there was a very interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this year, about work in Australia on using ammonia as a liquid carrier for hydrogen. This could solve some of the problems involved in storing and transporting hydrogen (it has a very low energy density and reacts with metal piping and tanks).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002z43
Richard, we could not thank the Tax Justice Network enough from being mentioned on Question Time last night in relation to the Labour Party Taxation plan. A plan already shot down in flames by the IFS and slammed in the news this morning as completely reckless!
Well done guys. 🙂
You’ve just handed the election to the Tories, hooray!
For the sake of those who are not aware who James is, he posts regularly and appears to be from the Channel Islands
And this reckless plan? It’s the OECD’s direction of travel for corporation tax.
As we know the IFS opposes all change
And the media hate Labour
As do the Channel Islands. They exist to undermine UK taxation – and this plan reclaims our right to tax
Th analysis you offer James is that of a person engaged in a desperate rearguard action
Oh Richard….Business will simply re-locate.
You know it, I know it and so do the voters.
But you carry on blaming the IFS and the Media because you are always right and they are never wrong…….Like the time you told us Jersey would be bankrupt by 2015….Yawn
What a load of codswallop. A massive growing 3conony which Labour will deliver and we have nit had is a business magnet
@James
“Oh Richard….Business will simply re-locate”
So businesses that were here when corporation tax was 28% in 2010 will move out of the country because it goes back up to 26%? They will move away from a country where investment and demand will be increasing massively with all the profit opportunities that offers for the sake of avoiding being taxed an extra 7% on their profits???
It all seems very unlikely to me.
I hope I’ve got the % figures right above – they are from memory!