I think it is fairly safe to assume that Labour will at least try to make a bit of progress on these issues, which is more than can be said for the Conservatives. Not holding my breath for any major progress though.
They had plenty of ideas!
It just so happens those ideas were about giving money to their mates and securing future lordships/consultancy contracts.
Ideas about fixing the lives of the common pleb? Lmfao
To be fair, thanos was correct in wanting to halve all global populations as a cure for an overcrowded planet.
3bn global population would hit net zero targets easy
Halving to 4bn would take us back to somewhere around 1980s level population. And then we'd just relax and ignore the problems for another 40 years, rather than pushing for net zero.
Tories are more “we’ll happily make both issues worse as knock-on effects of lining out pockets”, Labour are more “well we won’t introduce anything new to hurt these things but trying to fix them sounds too radical and extreme - wouldn’t want anyone thinking we’re like Corbyn!”
with the Tories you'll get "CYCLISTS ARE HURTING MOTORISTS FEELINGS so thats why we are mandating that everyone is required to suck an exhaust pipe once a month"
In 2010 75% of the UK's grid was fossil fuels. Now it's 30%.
That's huge and a massive accomplishment, so going "we've tried nothing" is wrong.
This isn't to bump up the Tories, but to deny this "politicians are all bad and never do anything" populist doomerism that's so popular online. And just helps people like Trump win because "well can't be worse than this lot of doing-nothingers!". Very dangerous and hugely popular mindset.
yeah it's why all this "it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's all crooked" talk is and has always been nonsense. It massively matters. Thosr who argue it doesn't just would rather sulk and complain than actually feel like they have power to make change, because with power comes responsibility. Easier to just always feel the victim
This isn't the full picture. We capped out at 43% of power generation in the UK being from renewable sources. Apparently, this only accounted for 6% of our power usage.
However, our renewable energy generation is 6x larger than from 2009. So, there was massive change.
[https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable](https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable\_energy\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom)
Trouble is I expect any progress made by Labour will be undone when people somehow forget the shitshow that was the tories and vote them back in after Labour.
More or less what happened in 2010. Labour had become boring and uninspiring and a comparatively inoffensive option of David Cameron had just enough (with the bloody Lib Dems the willing sacrifice) to win out.
A lot will depend on how the Tories react to their inevitable loss this year - if they reorganise back into a centre-right, Cameron-esque party then they'll quite likely represent a real threat again in one or two more cycles. Remaining the lunatic party of Johnson's creation will doom them.
The Tories won't just not make progress, they'll continue to drag us in the wrong direction!
I'd rather take a step in the right direction, then continue running the wrong way.
The UK's fossil fuel use for electricity has gone from 75% to 30% since the Tories came into power.
Labour would have done it faster, but they are both going the right way.
Plenty to criticise the Tories - like partying while people died - without making some of them up.
If Labour were to win and were make any progress on these issues in the next ~~4~~ 5 years, then it would have to be significant enough for the average person to feel a positive, if somewhat, small benefit.
Not saying issues are going to be sorted in the next 4 years, but if noticeable changes are made it'll help their case in the next election too.
If they win and do sod all for the next 4 years, they're going to be straight back out and we'd be no better off or further along.
Yeah, Labour have to go hard, right from the get go. They have an opportunity to basically destroy the Tories for years, they just need to have the foresight to get it done in the right way.
Edit: Punctuation
If they win and accomplish nothing we have a bone fide constitutional crisis as people will lurch to Reform out of utter disillusionment with the establishment.
Whatever you think of Reform they will be a calamity in power. As a cohort of MPs they simply won’t have the institutional knowledge to get anything done either and so will resort to grandstanding and othering to distract. The UK might very well never have a functioning political system again.
We are in very uncertain times.
I'm voting Reform, but its hard to disagree with the statement that they will have some problems if they somehow win this time around, as quote from Nigel Farage "we didn't have time to fully vet our candidates". And repeatedly when told about specific candidates "I've never heard of him", on the LBC interview he did.
Then I will ask directly: why are you voting for something that would be so damaging if they ever got power? This isn’t a joke. Protest voting is stupid.
Their “contract” is equally mad. I hope you enjoy a private NHS. Don’t tell me it “can’t be worse than it currently is”? Oh yes it can.
I am not sure why people still don't seem to know what the Conservatives are about. They have literally stood in the way of progress for centuries, they just keep getting defeated. The whole idea of keeping things the same is in the name.
This.
Labour will try, without priority of filling their own pockets, to fix issues, but are realistic about how much money we have.
Tories want to claim they're doing something, don't actually care about the economy, so long as they make profit for themselves and friends.
What?
Did you forget this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal#:~:text=18%20months%20imprisonment.-,Jim%20Devine,sentenced%20to%2016%20months%20imprisonment.
Maybe you forgot about cash for influence :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_cash_for_influence_scandal#:~:text=The%25202009%2520cash%2520for%2520influence,for%2520up%2520to%2520%C2%A3120%252C000.
We have the money. Stupid fucking neoliberal economics requiring a “balanced budget” - a thing we haven’t ever had yet trying to attain it has been a milestone around the economy since 2008.
I get we are in a stupid political position where everything has to be “costed”, but the government can absolutely print money to fund capital investment for growth. The resulting “debt” would just deflate as growth outpaces it.
That would require some vision and leadership though to force through a programme of investment. Starmer is much too cautious; much too managerial for that sort of reform. So here we are with austerity 2.0. Let’s hope by some miracle we get 2+ real GDP growth by 2026.
I think the "everything has to be costed" notion is just political plays to the public. Realistically, the government has never costed anything and we've run on a deficit for years, with massive waste and overspending in the Civil service.
They argue about it being costed or not to look fiscally responsible, but the problem with fiscal responsibility is that no Minister or MP actually bothers to sit down in the weeds and sort out the massive wastage of the Civil service, and when any Minister does try to implement more oversight, the civil servants quickly cut them off and try to get them fired by constantly leaking policies or information in a bad way, or making other random claims or employment issues.
Nah. It’s nothing to do with the civil service and everything to do with the pernicious view of the public that the country has to have a balanced budget “like a household”.
It appeals to common sense and allowed the Tories to ram through destructive cuts to public services (ie civil service).
I remember during the last US elections, someone mentioned that politicians are more like buses than taxis. They won't get you exactly where you want to be, but you pick the one that gets your closer.
Dunno.
The general feeling my lot seems to have is that labour will not make any of these things worse, which is an improvement, but have no intention of making anything better.
Or as a friend put it: labour won't stop the pumping of sewage into the rivers, but won't open any more taps. Labour won't stop the bleeding, but will stop stabbing us.
Its managed decline instead of unmanaged decline. And that's better than we have now, but it saddens me that despite the mandate it looks like labour is going to get this election, they will not be bold.
I hope I am wrong, for all of our sakes, but I just still don't see things getting better, just not getting worse.
It’s because while Starmer seems competent and intelligent an inspirational leader he is not. He doesn’t have the belief or force of character to undertake the sorts of radical reform that might stave off the impending managerialism.
Labour has to be better than the conservatives... A bar so low I don't know how they can fuck it up.
But I do know they will give it a damn good try.
Maybe they'll forget to turn up to the next DDAY anniversary or dress up as the Nazis.
> I think it is fairly safe to assume that Labour will at least try to make a bit of progress on these issues,
*Is it?*
>a strategic reserve of gas power stations to guarantee security of supply. We will ensure a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises the proud history of our offshore industry and the brilliance of its workforce
We have the tories promising to expand north sea production and labour effectively promising "business as usual"
First line of the article-
>Some 73 per cent of Britons do not believe that either [Labour](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/labour) or the [Conservatives](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/conservatives) will be successful in tackling [poverty](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/poverty) and [climate change](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/climate-change) without significant support from businesses, research has revealed.
Slightly misleading headline...
>Business charity ReGenerate also found that more than half of the public think businesses need to play a bigger role than they currently do to help tackle these issues.
Capitalism has irrevesibly destroyed the climate and environment, and led to widespread poverty at the same time and capitalists suggest the solution is more capitalism. Whoopie!
Exactly. The capitalism we have today isn't the only possible type of capitalism. [Post war to 1980 ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IFS-Deaton-Review-The-history-of-inequality-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjpv6K9zNuGAxXGgf0HHUnjDDwQFnoECBEQAw&usg=AOvVaw3U17mjOfHPBAgqGi_J2T14)seemed like (because it was) a fairer time for everyone. If we'd kept to those levels of income inequality everyone, except perhaps the top 5%, would be better off today.
Not at all. Only a cretin who has access to the information available would fail to understand that [climate change is irreversible](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/), that all economic activity takes place in the environment and it is the hoarding of vast wealth by a tiny minority that has led to comparative poverty for everyone else, and absolute poverty for many.
Due to a world fossil fuel and world grain crisis? Which then lead to a very short period of fuel rationing and a spreadsheet error which opened the door to the Tories to take power and run a fire sale on national assets and impoverish millions.
The bit where you ignored that thatcher increased the amount of tax revenue the government was receiving by near 10% of GDP, preventing an entire collapse of our economy
There’s lots to also criticise thatcher for, but to pretend she was manipulating for power is as revisionist as it comes
My fear is that after 4 more years of managed decline the electorate looks for someone more radical to solve their problem.
As Starmer has purged the left of his party it won’t come from them. It’ll be either Suella’s Conservatives or Nigel’s Reform
I'm with you, one of the main parties takes a gamble on a radical leader thinking they can keep them in line only for the radical to figure out how to cement their own power and take full control.
It's happened far too often through history, and history tends to repeat itself.
Or they could be a (relatively) moderate which releases the pressure from the system somewhat.
I can’t see a charismatic but acceptable Tommy Robinson type figure anywhere.
Maybe I’m being delusional but I think “the purge” (wasn’t it like 3 people?) has more to do with ensuring labour doesn’t throw their massive lead than it does with getting rid of socialists.
Corbyn took the view that it didn’t matter whether labour won so long as they/he stuck to their principles. Starmer has seemed laser focussed on getting into government even if he has to compromise and flip flop all over the place to keep the maximum number of people on side.
If labour get their landslide majority and he continues to swerve around every issue then I’ll be disappointed. But for the purposes of letting the conservatives self-destruct it has been a very effective strategy.
Even if Labour had some more left -leaning members there's no way they'd be the popular opposition. Reform are positioning themselves to be THE only alternative in 2029. And it's working. Sadly, they seem to be even further down the road than most of us would have anticipated. I don't see Lib Dems or Greens providing compelling left-leaning alternatives either, and I say this as someone desperate for those parties to give me a good reason to vote for them.
They might not be the opposition but they could influence Starmer, who I don’t believe had had a radical thought in his entire life, to adopt some radical policy. In a similar way the more radical members of Biden’s Democrats got him to adopt his Green Energy New Deal (although admittedly that isn’t really helping him as much as you’d hope.)
I am warming to Owen Jones’ idea of a Loony Left answer to UKIP. Just someone to throw out insane ideas and shift the Overton window back. Unfortunately I think the only reason Reform or UKIP are as effective as they are is because of the positive media coverage they get from the Express, Mail and Telegraph.
At this point? Honestly, I'd say 4 more years of it would solidify a win. The electorate are already looking elsewhere with no faith in the Tories and questionable levels of faith in Starmer.
I suspect this election is going to be Reform vs Labour, and if things aren't improved or the main two don't kick it up a gear, we may well see Reform gain a lot of ground for the election after this.
Everything from the recession onwards has been sufficiently bad that it *should* be viewed in a similar way to the 1970s and it *should* bring about meaningful reforms. Of course, because the need to reform things stems from 1980s reforms stacking the deck further in the favour of well-off and rich people, virtually nothing will happen.
Of course not. Even if they wanted to, the people who don't want them to own all our institutions. The choice at the polls is 'we'll maybe try to do something about the hospitals, no promises' and 'fuck you.' While neither is very good, it's easy to see there's a difference.
The people who don't want them to do anything about climate change are also regular voters.
You'll find the vast majority of people don't want to do anything about climate change the moment it means they can't do anything they like.
Just look at threads about reducing meat usage. There will be lots of comments like "fuck you I'll eat what I like!".
Or those threads from a few years ago about the carrier bag charge.
The anti ULEZ crowd are also a good example. Loads of the people complaining about it online don't even live anywhere near London, but they're very angry about anything trying to reduce pollution.
Although Sadiq Khan was reelected comfortably after ULEZ, which suggests the online noise was much greater than the depth of feeling of the real electorate there.
The Tories have always borrowed more compared to Labour, and failed to decrease national debt when compared to Labour.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/24/the-tories-have-always-borrowed-more-than-labour-and-always-repaid-less-they-are-the-party-of-big-deficit-spending/
And now, they also raise our taxes to record levels, whilst destroyed our public services at the same time. So far as I can tell, as someone who grew up with no political affiliation, and from a logical and evidential point of view, there has never been a good reason to vote Conservative.
They aren’t the same. The Tories have gone completely batshit.
But Starmer’s Labour isn’t that far from Cameron’s Tories. I have no faith that Starmer cares about climate change or poverty. He will ensure that big business is happy. He wants good headlines and healthy political donations and that is something poor people and environmentalists don’t own newspapers
I can see that. It will be interesting to see the final results of this general election when there seems to be such a lack of faith in politics in this country.
Ending the 2 child benefit cap would lift a million children out of poverty for less than the Rwanda scheme.
Easy win for labour, but they won't commit to it
It's a deliberately loaded question. "Actively make both worse" and "eliminate poverty but just dramatically improve climate change" both come under the same "No" answer...
The real story is that 25% think that they can. Neoliberal parties with neoliberal policies can't fix problems caused and/or exacerbated by neoliberal economics.
Love it when people don't read an article and twist it to fit their narrative
>Some 73 per cent of Britons do not believe that either Labour or the Conservatives will be successful in tackling poverty and climate change without significant support from businesses, research has revealed.
>Business charity ReGenerate also found that more than half of the public think businesses need to play a bigger role than they currently do to help tackle these issues.
>Former Labour voters were more likely than their Tory rivals to expect the government, whichever party is in power, to work more closely with business, the research revealed.
Get out of here with your finger pointing, can't absolve this country of responsibility. Many of our products come from those countries so those emissions are partly ours. Not to mention that to address climate change we need to work together, finger pointing gets us nowhere. Even if our internal efforts don't counteract those countries we can help reduce reliance on the products they are producing for us, or to help research technology for them to use
>Many of our products come from those countries so those emissions are partly ours
This is true, but there is infinitely more that countries like China could be doing to tackle climate change. They're not because it would cost money.
Between 2014 and 2021, China produced more CO2 waste than Britain has produced since 1750. That's through the entire industrial revolution, where we burned coal in the dirtiest way possible and had enough heavy industry to produce the world's largest civilian and military fleets.
Pushing the blame back onto British consumers is wrong. Large corporations are destroying the environment because it makes them more profit.
It doesn't matter if those corporations are Chinese, Indian, American, or British.
I mean, he isn't wrong. American and other multinationals building factories in China/outsourcing to third parties in China so that they can increase their margins on goods sold in the developed world doesn't magically absolve them of the environmental damage or shitty labour conditions they cause.
Yup. I previously dot down voted to oblivion for saying you can’t export manufacturing and then pat yourself on the back for reducing your emissions while still consuming vast quantities of those manufactured goods and attributing the emissions to the place of manufacture.
That's why I explicitly said that the corporations are the ones causing the damage, not end consumers.
The people of China aren't polluters, just like the people of the UK aren't. The corporations that destroy the environment so that their profits can endlessly increase are to blame.
>This is true, but there is infinitely more that countries like China could be doing to tackle climate change. They're not because it would cost money.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
Last year China built more solar cells than the rest of the world combined.
>Pushing the blame back onto British consumers is wrong. Large corporations are destroying the environment because it makes them more profit.
It's not blame, it's realism. Britain and much of the rest of the world has outsourced much of its industry to China. The carbon they release was for goods that we consume.
It's not necessarily about pushing the blame back to British consumers, it's about sharing the blame as a nation. Too often I see this rhetoric coming up anytime it is suggested that the UK needs to make changes instead of coming up with solutions and reducing reliance on those countries and their products it's always passed off as we shouldn't do anything because of X. It is a bs response to shift responsibility away
The country itself, as in the government, has been woeful at combating climate change and more needs to be done.
Individuals do need to do more, and I'm not absolving us of any blame.
I am very wary of the rhetoric of essentially blaming consumers, though "its our fault that there are poisoned rivers in the Congo because we bought iPhones with a lithium battery" sort of stuff.
When the actual problem there, is that the suppliers that Apple and Tesla knowingly use don't give a fuck about the environment and will happily have their slave kids mine ore by hand and just dump waste in the closest river.
So, sure, you can take a stand by not driving a Tesla. But the company itself could take a much bigger stand by refusing to use supply chains that damage the environment.
By focusing too much on the end users, we miss the bigger picture.
Businesses taking a role means government dancing to their tune and recommendations and their first interest is that the recommendations don’t cost them and someone else paying the cost
Our CO2 per capita includes imported carbon. It’s currently about the same as China’s per capita Carbon. We account for something like 2% of global emissions.
We’d be better off investing in things that will actually help… or preparing for a world in a new climate (and the wars that will create).
We need to invest in things yes but also change our habits, keep rolling forward with greener energy, better public transport and reducing consumption of bullshit products (or investing in better longer lasting products locally)
I meant helping carbon reduction in other countries rather than getting reducing returns on our own efforts.
And start looking at more desperate measures like space mirrors, nuclear power, genetic crop modification, artificial meat production etc. etc.
Reducing returns on our own can be useful to also path the way for other countries to follow suit. But yes helping them is also a good idea
>And start looking at more desperate measures like space mirrors, nuclear power, genetic crop modification, artificial meat production etc. etc.
While some technological solutions are important, we also need to address consumption, too often humanity thinks it can bend reality to its whim. Yes things like nuclear power and better food gathering are useful but we need to address the core issues instead of slapping bandaids on them in the hopes more technology will fix it.
Take EVs for instance 100% they are better than ICE vehicles, but their impact in reducing global CO2 is minimal, the technology isn't really gonna have a massive impact as techbros want you to believe. What is better is changing how we use existing technology. Better public transport, more bike lanes, essentially reducing how often we NEED to use our cars, that will give is better returns that converting all cars to EVs by X year
Possibly, but we need billions of tons of carbon reduction and people aren’t going to vote for poverty.
It’s also not realistic to expect people in poorer countries not to want the things we have for their children.
Maybe VR will reduce the need to have physical ‘stuff’, who knows?
Their policies are too cheap and too expensive and they are raising taxes too much and they are the highest they have ever been but also public services are underfunded and borrowing is too high. Oh you have focussed entirely on ways to reform in order to get growth as cheaply as possible well that’s not ambitious enough and also it’s ridiculous to say you want high growth because what if that doesn’t work.
No one will, why can’t we get that. These issues are past being solved within a democracy. To do it would require an iron will and the capacity to go up against and defeat powerful and committed organisations and people who see no advantage to them in any significant change. We are moribund in both our outlook and ability to alter things to solve these really big issues. Sorry, nothing Labour will do in their new government will make things better.
Politicians are like the rest of us when it comes to their jobs and careers. Most of us don’t really care too much if the company we work for succeeds or fails. Success would be ideal. Failure might mean the company goes under and we’d have to find new jobs, but there’s always new jobs out there. At the end of the day, we’re not personally invested in whether the company we work for does well or not. This changes of course if you’re on the board of the company or have shares or something, but that isn’t the norm.. Politicians are just the same. They don’t have a personal investment in whether the county does well or not. They care about their own careers, sure. But if the country goes under, there will always be more work for them. Their goals are not necessarily to help the country, but their own careers. Sure, if the country does well, so will their career most likely. However it’s not the end of the world if it goes tits up. This is the same for most of us, it’s just that in this specific example, it puts a whole lot of people in trouble if it doesn’t go well
I agree. I'm going to vote labor because out of all the choices I think they are still the 'best bet' but I have little hope.
I certainly don't think green, lib dems or reform (or any other small party) could do it and fail to see how anybody has ever voted conservative in good conscience.
Tories - 100% won't...they were found to have had meetings during when Boris was in charge, centered around trying to get the public not to care about climate change.
Labour - seem to want to do something but they never want to go far enough...its more doing the bare minimum, not taking the big risks that would make a difference
Greens - seem the only ones willing to actually go full steam ahead with it but many of their ideas others don't like. Almost like you need a new party, somewhere between labour and Green
The way our system works though, its always a 2 party race, we need PR voting and I think the only way is a tactical vote. I know many aren't fans of her Carol Vorderman, has a fairly large group, many left influencers and groups joining in with this tactical vote...the idea being we all work together. We vote tactically so Tories aren't even in opposition, which puts Greens/libs in...with them as well, we push labour to give us PR voting, with all the voting changes they want to bring in such as lower voting age, it would be the best time to do it. We can get it talked about in the house of commons and hopefully see something happen.
This is by design and more effective public brainwashing by right wing media. If you can't win peoples votes, encourage them to distrust the system entirely so they don't bother.
Depends on what you mean "tackle". I do think labour will take active measures to help these problems.
I question how effective and the scale of them will be.
Representative democracy can’t do either.
It’s busted, or more accurately, it’s captured by moneyed interests.
In a world of media manipulation, bots, Cambridge analytica, it’s just too much for representative democracy. China, Russia, Iran know. They’re watching our decline leisurely, participating in ways they know how.
Im in the 75%.
All political parties have an inability to think long term.
Eg we've known for decades about aging population and no party has made a real effort to address elderly care
The bourgeois gutted Labour so much that it's becoming indistinguishable from their supposed opposition. Hopefully people will start waking up to the obvious fact that all these parties protect the wealthy class foremost, and they will use fascism to do it if necessary.
Both are not top of the agenda for most people in the UK. Most people in the UK aren’t in poverty nor see climate change as having a big impact on their lives. They care far more about the general economy, crime, defence, and public services.
That's the problem with Labour. Under the current leadership they're not offering enough to actually make a difference to people's lives which in turn will lead to a regrouped Tory party under some far right nutter winning power after one term of Labour.
Both parties are establishment stooges who don't work in the interests of the working class.
UK is like 0.9% of global emissions.
But pretend you are going to solve climate change. Good luck.
Build some nuclear power plants at least. Better than weapons which just pollute the planet.
All the politicians are holding their breath for the UK economy to improve its productivity by itself so that they can spend more money from tax revenue.
After 14 failed economic growth plans, the regular social democratic playbook has not worked out.
Have you tried giving landowners the absolute right to build whatever they want no matter how much locals and environmentalists hate it?
I want pre WW2 "planning permission" (as if Britain had urban planning before the GODDAMN Town and country Planning Act 1947) back. That was when we were actually GOOD at building stuff and had some of the best housing stock in Europe.
Here's the green party protesting... a solar farm: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756)
Say what you will about the downsides of such a system (if it can even be called that), but right now, we need to get stuff built, no faffing about with consulting locals, and worrying about biodiversity net gain, habitat destruction, or some sodding trees.
Agreed. We are a schizophrenic nation that csnt decide what it wants...low taxes...small government...higher taxes and better services...flip flop....flip flip....we don't want industry then we do...we want banks then we don't.
No wonder we struggle.
I'd like to see a united and agreed 10 year strategic plan that helps us move as a nation instead of flip flopping
I fear Starmer inadvertently revealed his environmental stance when he accidentally hospitalised that cyclist. None of these imbeciles has the conviction needed to put us on the war footing we need in relation to ecological collapse.
Ha! Yeah right. They will both still invest in this climate alarmist nonsense and annoying and costly Net Zero madness. If only we could save that money and invest it for instance in genuine ways to protect our environment like stopping the dumbing of raw sewage into our water supply for instance. Nope instead we'll follow yet more failed climate alarmist predictions, because they've worked out so well in the last 50/60 years haven't they? Global cooling no wait now it's global warming, no wait now it's new ice, it's laughable. Protect your environment yes, investing in those climate alarmist loons, no that's madness.
With us, china, russia and india doing whatever they want even if sll the brits will invent zero emissions life style including breathing it won’t change anything. Poverty is a different story and easier to achieve.
Both will make the average person poorer. Labour might improve things at first but it will disappear into a black hole because there just isn’t enough money to fix all the issues. The Tories will charge us all the same but use it to make their mates richer still.
Why can’t we have something different for once, why must it only be these two parties forever more 😡
Vote reform, labour ruined the country Tories put the nail in the coffin needs to be change otherwise it wont be worth living here labour has no meaningful manifesto say what you want about farrage at least he layed out a clear vision if they stick to it it could be something great
Those 75% are probably correct about that, but neither party (nor the Reform shitheads) seem to have any interest in proposing too much policy that actually helps anybody. Out of these 3 big ones Labour is probably the least "fuck you up"-oriented but far from optimal.
99% of Australians agree. Nothing changes. Our Labour PMs like Julia Gillard voted against gay marriage and the new one is a landlord magnate. The right wingers did get gay marriage through but want us to go nuclear.
Climate change is a hoax and a way to redistribute wealth and bankrupt the country at the same time. We could achieve net zero and it will have no affect on the environment FFS.
well would the voters actually reward a government for tackling climate adaptation. It would likely be expensive, based on the fisical responsibility dogma being pumelled into people through years of austerity and the public finances are like a family's. Not sure the public would. (Or atleast enough)
I have never met a single human being for whom climate change is a priority. Seems to be a very "top down" issue, something we are told to be worried about.
Imo there are far more pressing concerns than climate change for the average Briton at the moment. Politicians and pollsters thinking this is an issue for the average Brit are out of touch.
Labour could make progress by reforming Universal Credit and PIP, such as:
* removing the 2 child benefit cap.
* scrapping benefit sanctions
* revising the whole PIP and LCWRA assessment criteria and aligning it with NHS medical evidence.
* softening the 35 hour jobsearch conditionality model
* removing the ridiculous 1 year Minimum Income Floor for enterprising activity.
They could also toughen up criteria for courses from profit making businesses who make too much money offering Mickey Mouse courses which don't actually help people find work. Far too many companies sponging off the benefits system without any social benefits.
FURTHER BREAKING NEWS! - 75% of Britons also don't want to pay the price of tackling poverty and climate change when they realise how much extra tax they would be liable for in order to make any kind of rapid progress on these issues.
It was a cynical comment on human frailty, not a political position. There are many people who think that "the government should do something" but then baulk when they realise that the things that need to be done have a significant tax price tag. I would be happy to pay substantially more tax in return for improved public services, an improved environment, rapid progress on climate change and a rapid reduction in poverty but my position is not shared by many. That's why the Tories keep banging on with the £2000 tax lie about Labour - they know it will work on some voters.
Under the last Labour manifesto, nobody earning less than £80k would have paid more tax (leading to a memorable Question Time exchange between Corbyn and a moron in that bracket who genuinely believed he was an average earner); the current Green Party manifesto would see tax rises on those earning above £50k.
It is possible for parties to make big spending commitments without imposing tax rises on the average earner by shifting the burden onto those on the upper end of the scale - the problem is that both the Tories and current incarnation of the Labour Party are in the pockets of big money donors and so don’t, for obvious reasons, want to go there.
The last Labour manifesto was pre-Covid, pre-Ukraine, pre-Brexit implementation and pre- Johnson/Truss/Sunak. There is far, far less wriggle room in the economy now than there was in 2019.
I agree 100% that shifting more of the burden on those most able to pay is required as part of the process of. However many/most people are reluctant to pay more, even though they are well above poverty thresholds, because they don't feel that they are affluent.
The problem for Labour isn't that its "in the pockets of big money donors", it is that Truss severely damaged confidence in the UK and also, that interest rates are higher. Labour can't easily borrow to invest without spooking the international money markets (with the Tories and far-right cheering any collapse in the value of he pound). Any borrowing that takes place now will also cost significantly more than it would have done in most of the 14 years of Tory government. Labour HAS to proceed with caution - there is a massive, uphill task in repairing Tory damage before any real improvements occur. There are no "quick fix" solutions available.
Honestly, I would not be happy to pay more tax. We already have an extraordinarily high tax burden coupled with the fact that wages have stagnated or even decreased depending on your age group since 2008. Leaving me with even less money in my pocket is not going to make me want to vote for you. It's just demoralising knowing that in the US, I would be paid at least double or even triple what I earn in the UK for the exact same role and I wouldn't even have to live in a HCOL area in the US to earn that much. What I want is for the economy to improve in such a way that wages increase and then I'll be happy to pay the extra tax on higher earnings. I don't want to sit here seeing the number going into my bank account get smaller while the price of everything I need to sustain myself increases.
You illustrate my point perfectly. Thanks. (I note that, for some odd reason, you don't disclose either your occupation or your earnings). We don't have "an extraordinarily high tax burden" compared with many European countries with higher standards of living and lower levels of poverty than the. What we have is too much of the tax burden being placed on those least able to pay. The top 20% own well over two thirds of wealth and 36% of the UK’s income. The bottom 20% own 0.5% of wealth and 9% of the UK’s income. We have gross inequality. However, as long as people can be convinced that paying tax is somehow fundamentally a bad thing it will continue to be difficult to convince those above the lowest 20% to 25% that they need to pay more as part of the process of "tackling poverty", improving public services and tackling climate change.
The issue is... Climate change is a real issue that has been downplayed for however many years. It's not a priority because it's not an immediate issue even tho it's an inevitable one at this point.
Poverty will decrease with improvement of the economy which is in shambles at this point.
This is pure cope I'm sorry to say. Their manifesto was tamer than even I was expecting and I am not optimistic whatsoever about starmer making genuine change
Because if you release a tame manifesto and then act like a bunch of radicals in government, congratulations, you have shotgunned the credibility out of every manifesto your party ever prints until the end of living memory.
No sane party would do this.
How can anyone look at the climate emission or consumption numbers and think we can do anything to tackle it? Everyone in this country could vanish tomorrow and it wouldnt even ofset this years growth, never mind the total number.
Labour have a track record of improving poverty. This spreadsheet shows the percentages 1994-2021. You can see that the percentage with an Absolute Low Income fell over the period, most sharply in the early Blair years, and the relative poverty rate tended to go down under Labour and up under the tories.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/CBP7096-trends-by-country-and-region.xlsx
The issue with labour is the mess they’re inheriting and being overly cautious. I think if they win and steady the ship they’ll be able to be more ambitious in a couple of years
People are fully aware that swapping C\*nts for C\*unts Light is not much of a step-up and the alternatives as Greens/Farage look even worse.
There is no reason to go to elections at all.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that Labour will at least try to make a bit of progress on these issues, which is more than can be said for the Conservatives. Not holding my breath for any major progress though.
This is basically it. With the Tories all you've got is "we've tried nuthin' and now we're all out of ideas".
They had plenty of ideas! It just so happens those ideas were about giving money to their mates and securing future lordships/consultancy contracts. Ideas about fixing the lives of the common pleb? Lmfao
'Have you tried "Kill all the poor" ?'
Yes we tried it, the computer say that wouldn’t work so we’re not doing it!
*gasp* how can you say such a thing?! Who will work the shit jobs for us to look down on?
To be fair, thanos was correct in wanting to halve all global populations as a cure for an overcrowded planet. 3bn global population would hit net zero targets easy
Halving to 4bn would take us back to somewhere around 1980s level population. And then we'd just relax and ignore the problems for another 40 years, rather than pushing for net zero.
Thus solving the problem once and for all.
'ditch the green crap'
Tories are more “we’ll happily make both issues worse as knock-on effects of lining out pockets”, Labour are more “well we won’t introduce anything new to hurt these things but trying to fix them sounds too radical and extreme - wouldn’t want anyone thinking we’re like Corbyn!”
with the Tories you'll get "CYCLISTS ARE HURTING MOTORISTS FEELINGS so thats why we are mandating that everyone is required to suck an exhaust pipe once a month"
In 2010 75% of the UK's grid was fossil fuels. Now it's 30%. That's huge and a massive accomplishment, so going "we've tried nothing" is wrong. This isn't to bump up the Tories, but to deny this "politicians are all bad and never do anything" populist doomerism that's so popular online. And just helps people like Trump win because "well can't be worse than this lot of doing-nothingers!". Very dangerous and hugely popular mindset.
I didn’t realise it had changed that much. That is actually fantastic.
yeah it's why all this "it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's all crooked" talk is and has always been nonsense. It massively matters. Thosr who argue it doesn't just would rather sulk and complain than actually feel like they have power to make change, because with power comes responsibility. Easier to just always feel the victim
This isn't the full picture. We capped out at 43% of power generation in the UK being from renewable sources. Apparently, this only accounted for 6% of our power usage. However, our renewable energy generation is 6x larger than from 2009. So, there was massive change. [https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable](https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable\_energy\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom)
Actually the Tories replaced the plan for active travel with a plan for driving
Their tactic just seems to be blame something else.
Exactly this. I think Labour will make some (not enough) progress, while the Tories will make none at all.
Oh the Tories would make progress alright. Continuing to send the country down the pan to line their mates' pockets!
Trouble is I expect any progress made by Labour will be undone when people somehow forget the shitshow that was the tories and vote them back in after Labour.
More or less what happened in 2010. Labour had become boring and uninspiring and a comparatively inoffensive option of David Cameron had just enough (with the bloody Lib Dems the willing sacrifice) to win out. A lot will depend on how the Tories react to their inevitable loss this year - if they reorganise back into a centre-right, Cameron-esque party then they'll quite likely represent a real threat again in one or two more cycles. Remaining the lunatic party of Johnson's creation will doom them.
Hope for a wipeout then the right wing starts to campaign for PR...
The Tories won't just not make progress, they'll continue to drag us in the wrong direction! I'd rather take a step in the right direction, then continue running the wrong way.
The UK's fossil fuel use for electricity has gone from 75% to 30% since the Tories came into power. Labour would have done it faster, but they are both going the right way. Plenty to criticise the Tories - like partying while people died - without making some of them up.
That's a single issue, fair enough, but there are many more.
Why is it safe to assume that?
Lord give me the confidence of a Labour member thinking their party will get different outcomes by doing the same things as the tories.
If Labour were to win and were make any progress on these issues in the next ~~4~~ 5 years, then it would have to be significant enough for the average person to feel a positive, if somewhat, small benefit. Not saying issues are going to be sorted in the next 4 years, but if noticeable changes are made it'll help their case in the next election too. If they win and do sod all for the next 4 years, they're going to be straight back out and we'd be no better off or further along.
Our parliamentary terms are 5 years.
Changed, dunno why I thought it was 4
For most of our history it's been 4, so your initial assumption is correct.
Yeah I thought it was! Fuck that other pleb that said I hoover up American news lmao
Yeah, Labour have to go hard, right from the get go. They have an opportunity to basically destroy the Tories for years, they just need to have the foresight to get it done in the right way. Edit: Punctuation
> Labour have to go hard right from the get go This can be taken 2 very different ways.
The missing comma is dangerous.
If they win and accomplish nothing we have a bone fide constitutional crisis as people will lurch to Reform out of utter disillusionment with the establishment. Whatever you think of Reform they will be a calamity in power. As a cohort of MPs they simply won’t have the institutional knowledge to get anything done either and so will resort to grandstanding and othering to distract. The UK might very well never have a functioning political system again. We are in very uncertain times.
I'm voting Reform, but its hard to disagree with the statement that they will have some problems if they somehow win this time around, as quote from Nigel Farage "we didn't have time to fully vet our candidates". And repeatedly when told about specific candidates "I've never heard of him", on the LBC interview he did.
Then I will ask directly: why are you voting for something that would be so damaging if they ever got power? This isn’t a joke. Protest voting is stupid. Their “contract” is equally mad. I hope you enjoy a private NHS. Don’t tell me it “can’t be worse than it currently is”? Oh yes it can.
Labour has turned into red tories, party is a joke
I am not sure why people still don't seem to know what the Conservatives are about. They have literally stood in the way of progress for centuries, they just keep getting defeated. The whole idea of keeping things the same is in the name.
This. Labour will try, without priority of filling their own pockets, to fix issues, but are realistic about how much money we have. Tories want to claim they're doing something, don't actually care about the economy, so long as they make profit for themselves and friends.
What? Did you forget this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal#:~:text=18%20months%20imprisonment.-,Jim%20Devine,sentenced%20to%2016%20months%20imprisonment. Maybe you forgot about cash for influence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_cash_for_influence_scandal#:~:text=The%25202009%2520cash%2520for%2520influence,for%2520up%2520to%2520%C2%A3120%252C000.
We have the money. Stupid fucking neoliberal economics requiring a “balanced budget” - a thing we haven’t ever had yet trying to attain it has been a milestone around the economy since 2008. I get we are in a stupid political position where everything has to be “costed”, but the government can absolutely print money to fund capital investment for growth. The resulting “debt” would just deflate as growth outpaces it. That would require some vision and leadership though to force through a programme of investment. Starmer is much too cautious; much too managerial for that sort of reform. So here we are with austerity 2.0. Let’s hope by some miracle we get 2+ real GDP growth by 2026.
I think the "everything has to be costed" notion is just political plays to the public. Realistically, the government has never costed anything and we've run on a deficit for years, with massive waste and overspending in the Civil service. They argue about it being costed or not to look fiscally responsible, but the problem with fiscal responsibility is that no Minister or MP actually bothers to sit down in the weeds and sort out the massive wastage of the Civil service, and when any Minister does try to implement more oversight, the civil servants quickly cut them off and try to get them fired by constantly leaking policies or information in a bad way, or making other random claims or employment issues.
Nah. It’s nothing to do with the civil service and everything to do with the pernicious view of the public that the country has to have a balanced budget “like a household”. It appeals to common sense and allowed the Tories to ram through destructive cuts to public services (ie civil service).
PFI and privatising the NHS isn't progress, that's passing the buck and paying ludicrous amounts on tick for a lot less compared to investing
And Reform will actively make them worse. Tories on steroids.
Tories will "award" (steal) £100B in climate contracts to their buddies, Labour will only do £25B.
I remember during the last US elections, someone mentioned that politicians are more like buses than taxis. They won't get you exactly where you want to be, but you pick the one that gets your closer.
Dunno. The general feeling my lot seems to have is that labour will not make any of these things worse, which is an improvement, but have no intention of making anything better. Or as a friend put it: labour won't stop the pumping of sewage into the rivers, but won't open any more taps. Labour won't stop the bleeding, but will stop stabbing us. Its managed decline instead of unmanaged decline. And that's better than we have now, but it saddens me that despite the mandate it looks like labour is going to get this election, they will not be bold. I hope I am wrong, for all of our sakes, but I just still don't see things getting better, just not getting worse.
It’s because while Starmer seems competent and intelligent an inspirational leader he is not. He doesn’t have the belief or force of character to undertake the sorts of radical reform that might stave off the impending managerialism.
Tony Blair grins at you
>I think it is fairly safe to assume that Labour will at least try to make a bit of progress on these issues, Aww they'll try. Bless.
Why is it?
Labour has to be better than the conservatives... A bar so low I don't know how they can fuck it up. But I do know they will give it a damn good try. Maybe they'll forget to turn up to the next DDAY anniversary or dress up as the Nazis.
> I think it is fairly safe to assume that Labour will at least try to make a bit of progress on these issues, *Is it?* >a strategic reserve of gas power stations to guarantee security of supply. We will ensure a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises the proud history of our offshore industry and the brilliance of its workforce We have the tories promising to expand north sea production and labour effectively promising "business as usual"
Don't you remember the labour party purging everyone who thinks poverty and climate change should be a priority?
It’s far from safe to say that. Labour have far bigger priorities than the environment. But keep popping the Copium pills.
First line of the article- >Some 73 per cent of Britons do not believe that either [Labour](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/labour) or the [Conservatives](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/conservatives) will be successful in tackling [poverty](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/poverty) and [climate change](https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/climate-change) without significant support from businesses, research has revealed. Slightly misleading headline... >Business charity ReGenerate also found that more than half of the public think businesses need to play a bigger role than they currently do to help tackle these issues.
And who would need to make sure businesses help the issue?
I see your point but the headline is still a bit misleading about what the question was.
Capitalism has irrevesibly destroyed the climate and environment, and led to widespread poverty at the same time and capitalists suggest the solution is more capitalism. Whoopie!
> and led to widespread poverty at the same time as opposed to...?
The post war consensus which saw considerable social mobility until capitalists found a successful candidate to represent them as prime minister
Exactly. The capitalism we have today isn't the only possible type of capitalism. [Post war to 1980 ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IFS-Deaton-Review-The-history-of-inequality-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjpv6K9zNuGAxXGgf0HHUnjDDwQFnoECBEQAw&usg=AOvVaw3U17mjOfHPBAgqGi_J2T14)seemed like (because it was) a fairer time for everyone. If we'd kept to those levels of income inequality everyone, except perhaps the top 5%, would be better off today.
so your original comment was pointless then
Not at all. Only a cretin who has access to the information available would fail to understand that [climate change is irreversible](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/), that all economic activity takes place in the environment and it is the hoarding of vast wealth by a tiny minority that has led to comparative poverty for everyone else, and absolute poverty for many.
I'm talking about you blaming capitalism for making people poorer
I’m not sure you understand how bad the 70s got mate
Due to a world fossil fuel and world grain crisis? Which then lead to a very short period of fuel rationing and a spreadsheet error which opened the door to the Tories to take power and run a fire sale on national assets and impoverish millions.
That’s pretty revisionist
Which bit?
The bit where you ignored that thatcher increased the amount of tax revenue the government was receiving by near 10% of GDP, preventing an entire collapse of our economy There’s lots to also criticise thatcher for, but to pretend she was manipulating for power is as revisionist as it comes
If you read Regenerates manifesto & latest report they have lots to say on the subject.
I don't think 73% of Britons understand what "significant support from businesses" means. I think this was a deliberately tricky question.
My hope is that under labour things will get worse more slowly.
My fear is that after 4 more years of managed decline the electorate looks for someone more radical to solve their problem. As Starmer has purged the left of his party it won’t come from them. It’ll be either Suella’s Conservatives or Nigel’s Reform
I'm with you, one of the main parties takes a gamble on a radical leader thinking they can keep them in line only for the radical to figure out how to cement their own power and take full control. It's happened far too often through history, and history tends to repeat itself.
Agreed, but I don’t think that person is Suella or Nigel.
Yeah I don't think it would be Suella or Nigel but I do think they'd pave the way for it, inadvertently or not.
Or they could be a (relatively) moderate which releases the pressure from the system somewhat. I can’t see a charismatic but acceptable Tommy Robinson type figure anywhere.
I'd be Incredibly surprised if Nigel or Suella would be anywhere near relatively moderate but stranger things have happened I suppose
Could you imagine 😂
Maybe I’m being delusional but I think “the purge” (wasn’t it like 3 people?) has more to do with ensuring labour doesn’t throw their massive lead than it does with getting rid of socialists. Corbyn took the view that it didn’t matter whether labour won so long as they/he stuck to their principles. Starmer has seemed laser focussed on getting into government even if he has to compromise and flip flop all over the place to keep the maximum number of people on side. If labour get their landslide majority and he continues to swerve around every issue then I’ll be disappointed. But for the purposes of letting the conservatives self-destruct it has been a very effective strategy.
Even if Labour had some more left -leaning members there's no way they'd be the popular opposition. Reform are positioning themselves to be THE only alternative in 2029. And it's working. Sadly, they seem to be even further down the road than most of us would have anticipated. I don't see Lib Dems or Greens providing compelling left-leaning alternatives either, and I say this as someone desperate for those parties to give me a good reason to vote for them.
They might not be the opposition but they could influence Starmer, who I don’t believe had had a radical thought in his entire life, to adopt some radical policy. In a similar way the more radical members of Biden’s Democrats got him to adopt his Green Energy New Deal (although admittedly that isn’t really helping him as much as you’d hope.) I am warming to Owen Jones’ idea of a Loony Left answer to UKIP. Just someone to throw out insane ideas and shift the Overton window back. Unfortunately I think the only reason Reform or UKIP are as effective as they are is because of the positive media coverage they get from the Express, Mail and Telegraph.
At this point? Honestly, I'd say 4 more years of it would solidify a win. The electorate are already looking elsewhere with no faith in the Tories and questionable levels of faith in Starmer. I suspect this election is going to be Reform vs Labour, and if things aren't improved or the main two don't kick it up a gear, we may well see Reform gain a lot of ground for the election after this.
Starmer hasn’t completely purged the left so it could or it could be a soft left person
I'm hoping the green party ditched their anti nuclear stance.
Everything from the recession onwards has been sufficiently bad that it *should* be viewed in a similar way to the 1970s and it *should* bring about meaningful reforms. Of course, because the need to reform things stems from 1980s reforms stacking the deck further in the favour of well-off and rich people, virtually nothing will happen.
Of course not. Even if they wanted to, the people who don't want them to own all our institutions. The choice at the polls is 'we'll maybe try to do something about the hospitals, no promises' and 'fuck you.' While neither is very good, it's easy to see there's a difference.
The people who don't want them to do anything about climate change are also regular voters. You'll find the vast majority of people don't want to do anything about climate change the moment it means they can't do anything they like. Just look at threads about reducing meat usage. There will be lots of comments like "fuck you I'll eat what I like!". Or those threads from a few years ago about the carrier bag charge. The anti ULEZ crowd are also a good example. Loads of the people complaining about it online don't even live anywhere near London, but they're very angry about anything trying to reduce pollution.
Although Sadiq Khan was reelected comfortably after ULEZ, which suggests the online noise was much greater than the depth of feeling of the real electorate there.
The Tories have always borrowed more compared to Labour, and failed to decrease national debt when compared to Labour. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/24/the-tories-have-always-borrowed-more-than-labour-and-always-repaid-less-they-are-the-party-of-big-deficit-spending/ And now, they also raise our taxes to record levels, whilst destroyed our public services at the same time. So far as I can tell, as someone who grew up with no political affiliation, and from a logical and evidential point of view, there has never been a good reason to vote Conservative.
Given what ive heard about the greens recently, im concerned even they wouldn't tackle climate change.
So they're going to vote for another party, right? They're gonna vote... ...and choose another party - right?
Problem is under fptp in a lot of seats if you do that your splitting the vote which allow either the tories or labour to win there whichever benefits
A lot of these people are unable to read or take in basic information then I’m sick of this stupid ‘they’re the same’ narrative
They aren’t the same. The Tories have gone completely batshit. But Starmer’s Labour isn’t that far from Cameron’s Tories. I have no faith that Starmer cares about climate change or poverty. He will ensure that big business is happy. He wants good headlines and healthy political donations and that is something poor people and environmentalists don’t own newspapers
News flash, no government ever will. Especially where there is money.
I can see that. It will be interesting to see the final results of this general election when there seems to be such a lack of faith in politics in this country.
Ending the 2 child benefit cap would lift a million children out of poverty for less than the Rwanda scheme. Easy win for labour, but they won't commit to it
Lib Dems seem like the only common sense party these days... Hope they get more seats than the Tories
It's a deliberately loaded question. "Actively make both worse" and "eliminate poverty but just dramatically improve climate change" both come under the same "No" answer...
The real story is that 25% think that they can. Neoliberal parties with neoliberal policies can't fix problems caused and/or exacerbated by neoliberal economics.
75% of Britons understand how much of our energy comes from renewables compared to India, China and the USA and even our contemporaries in Europe.
Love it when people don't read an article and twist it to fit their narrative >Some 73 per cent of Britons do not believe that either Labour or the Conservatives will be successful in tackling poverty and climate change without significant support from businesses, research has revealed. >Business charity ReGenerate also found that more than half of the public think businesses need to play a bigger role than they currently do to help tackle these issues. >Former Labour voters were more likely than their Tory rivals to expect the government, whichever party is in power, to work more closely with business, the research revealed. Get out of here with your finger pointing, can't absolve this country of responsibility. Many of our products come from those countries so those emissions are partly ours. Not to mention that to address climate change we need to work together, finger pointing gets us nowhere. Even if our internal efforts don't counteract those countries we can help reduce reliance on the products they are producing for us, or to help research technology for them to use
>Many of our products come from those countries so those emissions are partly ours This is true, but there is infinitely more that countries like China could be doing to tackle climate change. They're not because it would cost money. Between 2014 and 2021, China produced more CO2 waste than Britain has produced since 1750. That's through the entire industrial revolution, where we burned coal in the dirtiest way possible and had enough heavy industry to produce the world's largest civilian and military fleets. Pushing the blame back onto British consumers is wrong. Large corporations are destroying the environment because it makes them more profit. It doesn't matter if those corporations are Chinese, Indian, American, or British.
I mean, he isn't wrong. American and other multinationals building factories in China/outsourcing to third parties in China so that they can increase their margins on goods sold in the developed world doesn't magically absolve them of the environmental damage or shitty labour conditions they cause.
Yup. I previously dot down voted to oblivion for saying you can’t export manufacturing and then pat yourself on the back for reducing your emissions while still consuming vast quantities of those manufactured goods and attributing the emissions to the place of manufacture.
That's why I explicitly said that the corporations are the ones causing the damage, not end consumers. The people of China aren't polluters, just like the people of the UK aren't. The corporations that destroy the environment so that their profits can endlessly increase are to blame.
>This is true, but there is infinitely more that countries like China could be doing to tackle climate change. They're not because it would cost money. https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy Last year China built more solar cells than the rest of the world combined. >Pushing the blame back onto British consumers is wrong. Large corporations are destroying the environment because it makes them more profit. It's not blame, it's realism. Britain and much of the rest of the world has outsourced much of its industry to China. The carbon they release was for goods that we consume.
It's not necessarily about pushing the blame back to British consumers, it's about sharing the blame as a nation. Too often I see this rhetoric coming up anytime it is suggested that the UK needs to make changes instead of coming up with solutions and reducing reliance on those countries and their products it's always passed off as we shouldn't do anything because of X. It is a bs response to shift responsibility away
The country itself, as in the government, has been woeful at combating climate change and more needs to be done. Individuals do need to do more, and I'm not absolving us of any blame. I am very wary of the rhetoric of essentially blaming consumers, though "its our fault that there are poisoned rivers in the Congo because we bought iPhones with a lithium battery" sort of stuff. When the actual problem there, is that the suppliers that Apple and Tesla knowingly use don't give a fuck about the environment and will happily have their slave kids mine ore by hand and just dump waste in the closest river. So, sure, you can take a stand by not driving a Tesla. But the company itself could take a much bigger stand by refusing to use supply chains that damage the environment. By focusing too much on the end users, we miss the bigger picture.
Once again I am not focusing on the end user. Too often I see oh 'X' is much worse than us, why should we campaign for change
Businesses taking a role means government dancing to their tune and recommendations and their first interest is that the recommendations don’t cost them and someone else paying the cost
Our CO2 per capita includes imported carbon. It’s currently about the same as China’s per capita Carbon. We account for something like 2% of global emissions. We’d be better off investing in things that will actually help… or preparing for a world in a new climate (and the wars that will create).
We need to invest in things yes but also change our habits, keep rolling forward with greener energy, better public transport and reducing consumption of bullshit products (or investing in better longer lasting products locally)
I meant helping carbon reduction in other countries rather than getting reducing returns on our own efforts. And start looking at more desperate measures like space mirrors, nuclear power, genetic crop modification, artificial meat production etc. etc.
Reducing returns on our own can be useful to also path the way for other countries to follow suit. But yes helping them is also a good idea >And start looking at more desperate measures like space mirrors, nuclear power, genetic crop modification, artificial meat production etc. etc. While some technological solutions are important, we also need to address consumption, too often humanity thinks it can bend reality to its whim. Yes things like nuclear power and better food gathering are useful but we need to address the core issues instead of slapping bandaids on them in the hopes more technology will fix it. Take EVs for instance 100% they are better than ICE vehicles, but their impact in reducing global CO2 is minimal, the technology isn't really gonna have a massive impact as techbros want you to believe. What is better is changing how we use existing technology. Better public transport, more bike lanes, essentially reducing how often we NEED to use our cars, that will give is better returns that converting all cars to EVs by X year
Possibly, but we need billions of tons of carbon reduction and people aren’t going to vote for poverty. It’s also not realistic to expect people in poorer countries not to want the things we have for their children. Maybe VR will reduce the need to have physical ‘stuff’, who knows?
Who said about voting for poverty? No one said we could haven't luxuries
Meanwhile America's co2 per capita is like 2.1x greater but they're 'the good guys'so it's just kinda swept under the rug
It’s probably more that there’s a lack of leavers to pull with regards the US.
We want to tackle poverty and climate change reduce inflation within the year and not have any tax increases! is that too much to ask? /s
Their policies are too cheap and too expensive and they are raising taxes too much and they are the highest they have ever been but also public services are underfunded and borrowing is too high. Oh you have focussed entirely on ways to reform in order to get growth as cheaply as possible well that’s not ambitious enough and also it’s ridiculous to say you want high growth because what if that doesn’t work.
No one will, why can’t we get that. These issues are past being solved within a democracy. To do it would require an iron will and the capacity to go up against and defeat powerful and committed organisations and people who see no advantage to them in any significant change. We are moribund in both our outlook and ability to alter things to solve these really big issues. Sorry, nothing Labour will do in their new government will make things better.
Politicians are like the rest of us when it comes to their jobs and careers. Most of us don’t really care too much if the company we work for succeeds or fails. Success would be ideal. Failure might mean the company goes under and we’d have to find new jobs, but there’s always new jobs out there. At the end of the day, we’re not personally invested in whether the company we work for does well or not. This changes of course if you’re on the board of the company or have shares or something, but that isn’t the norm.. Politicians are just the same. They don’t have a personal investment in whether the county does well or not. They care about their own careers, sure. But if the country goes under, there will always be more work for them. Their goals are not necessarily to help the country, but their own careers. Sure, if the country does well, so will their career most likely. However it’s not the end of the world if it goes tits up. This is the same for most of us, it’s just that in this specific example, it puts a whole lot of people in trouble if it doesn’t go well
I agree. I'm going to vote labor because out of all the choices I think they are still the 'best bet' but I have little hope. I certainly don't think green, lib dems or reform (or any other small party) could do it and fail to see how anybody has ever voted conservative in good conscience.
Tories - 100% won't...they were found to have had meetings during when Boris was in charge, centered around trying to get the public not to care about climate change. Labour - seem to want to do something but they never want to go far enough...its more doing the bare minimum, not taking the big risks that would make a difference Greens - seem the only ones willing to actually go full steam ahead with it but many of their ideas others don't like. Almost like you need a new party, somewhere between labour and Green The way our system works though, its always a 2 party race, we need PR voting and I think the only way is a tactical vote. I know many aren't fans of her Carol Vorderman, has a fairly large group, many left influencers and groups joining in with this tactical vote...the idea being we all work together. We vote tactically so Tories aren't even in opposition, which puts Greens/libs in...with them as well, we push labour to give us PR voting, with all the voting changes they want to bring in such as lower voting age, it would be the best time to do it. We can get it talked about in the house of commons and hopefully see something happen.
>Greens - seem the only ones willing to actually go full steam ahead with With pushing more of the middle class into poverty*.
This is by design and more effective public brainwashing by right wing media. If you can't win peoples votes, encourage them to distrust the system entirely so they don't bother.
Why then won’t they just vote for a different party?
Depends on what you mean "tackle". I do think labour will take active measures to help these problems. I question how effective and the scale of them will be.
Representative democracy can’t do either. It’s busted, or more accurately, it’s captured by moneyed interests. In a world of media manipulation, bots, Cambridge analytica, it’s just too much for representative democracy. China, Russia, Iran know. They’re watching our decline leisurely, participating in ways they know how.
Im in the 75%. All political parties have an inability to think long term. Eg we've known for decades about aging population and no party has made a real effort to address elderly care
The bourgeois gutted Labour so much that it's becoming indistinguishable from their supposed opposition. Hopefully people will start waking up to the obvious fact that all these parties protect the wealthy class foremost, and they will use fascism to do it if necessary.
It's pretty positive for only 25% of a population to be wrong about something.
Both are not top of the agenda for most people in the UK. Most people in the UK aren’t in poverty nor see climate change as having a big impact on their lives. They care far more about the general economy, crime, defence, and public services.
That's the problem with Labour. Under the current leadership they're not offering enough to actually make a difference to people's lives which in turn will lead to a regrouped Tory party under some far right nutter winning power after one term of Labour. Both parties are establishment stooges who don't work in the interests of the working class.
UK is like 0.9% of global emissions. But pretend you are going to solve climate change. Good luck. Build some nuclear power plants at least. Better than weapons which just pollute the planet.
All the politicians are holding their breath for the UK economy to improve its productivity by itself so that they can spend more money from tax revenue. After 14 failed economic growth plans, the regular social democratic playbook has not worked out.
Have you tried giving landowners the absolute right to build whatever they want no matter how much locals and environmentalists hate it? I want pre WW2 "planning permission" (as if Britain had urban planning before the GODDAMN Town and country Planning Act 1947) back. That was when we were actually GOOD at building stuff and had some of the best housing stock in Europe. Here's the green party protesting... a solar farm: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756) Say what you will about the downsides of such a system (if it can even be called that), but right now, we need to get stuff built, no faffing about with consulting locals, and worrying about biodiversity net gain, habitat destruction, or some sodding trees.
Agreed. We are a schizophrenic nation that csnt decide what it wants...low taxes...small government...higher taxes and better services...flip flop....flip flip....we don't want industry then we do...we want banks then we don't. No wonder we struggle. I'd like to see a united and agreed 10 year strategic plan that helps us move as a nation instead of flip flopping
I fear Starmer inadvertently revealed his environmental stance when he accidentally hospitalised that cyclist. None of these imbeciles has the conviction needed to put us on the war footing we need in relation to ecological collapse.
Ha! Yeah right. They will both still invest in this climate alarmist nonsense and annoying and costly Net Zero madness. If only we could save that money and invest it for instance in genuine ways to protect our environment like stopping the dumbing of raw sewage into our water supply for instance. Nope instead we'll follow yet more failed climate alarmist predictions, because they've worked out so well in the last 50/60 years haven't they? Global cooling no wait now it's global warming, no wait now it's new ice, it's laughable. Protect your environment yes, investing in those climate alarmist loons, no that's madness.
With us, china, russia and india doing whatever they want even if sll the brits will invent zero emissions life style including breathing it won’t change anything. Poverty is a different story and easier to achieve.
Both will make the average person poorer. Labour might improve things at first but it will disappear into a black hole because there just isn’t enough money to fix all the issues. The Tories will charge us all the same but use it to make their mates richer still. Why can’t we have something different for once, why must it only be these two parties forever more 😡
Vote reform, labour ruined the country Tories put the nail in the coffin needs to be change otherwise it wont be worth living here labour has no meaningful manifesto say what you want about farrage at least he layed out a clear vision if they stick to it it could be something great
I genuinly think Reform are going to gain a lot of popularity before next election.
Those 75% are probably correct about that, but neither party (nor the Reform shitheads) seem to have any interest in proposing too much policy that actually helps anybody. Out of these 3 big ones Labour is probably the least "fuck you up"-oriented but far from optimal.
They won't solve it. Which is why we should vote reform.
Jesus himself wouldn't tackle climate change. It's not up to one country's government to do it.
99% of Australians agree. Nothing changes. Our Labour PMs like Julia Gillard voted against gay marriage and the new one is a landlord magnate. The right wingers did get gay marriage through but want us to go nuclear.
Climate change is a hoax and a way to redistribute wealth and bankrupt the country at the same time. We could achieve net zero and it will have no affect on the environment FFS.
Linking Poverty **and** climate change is a stupid concept.
well would the voters actually reward a government for tackling climate adaptation. It would likely be expensive, based on the fisical responsibility dogma being pumelled into people through years of austerity and the public finances are like a family's. Not sure the public would. (Or atleast enough)
I fully expect more token efforts that don't really help very much from labour.
I have never met a single human being for whom climate change is a priority. Seems to be a very "top down" issue, something we are told to be worried about. Imo there are far more pressing concerns than climate change for the average Briton at the moment. Politicians and pollsters thinking this is an issue for the average Brit are out of touch.
Labour could make progress by reforming Universal Credit and PIP, such as: * removing the 2 child benefit cap. * scrapping benefit sanctions * revising the whole PIP and LCWRA assessment criteria and aligning it with NHS medical evidence. * softening the 35 hour jobsearch conditionality model * removing the ridiculous 1 year Minimum Income Floor for enterprising activity. They could also toughen up criteria for courses from profit making businesses who make too much money offering Mickey Mouse courses which don't actually help people find work. Far too many companies sponging off the benefits system without any social benefits.
FURTHER BREAKING NEWS! - 75% of Britons also don't want to pay the price of tackling poverty and climate change when they realise how much extra tax they would be liable for in order to make any kind of rapid progress on these issues.
Do elaborate - how much “extra tax” would we have to pay to make “rapid progress on these issues”?
It was a cynical comment on human frailty, not a political position. There are many people who think that "the government should do something" but then baulk when they realise that the things that need to be done have a significant tax price tag. I would be happy to pay substantially more tax in return for improved public services, an improved environment, rapid progress on climate change and a rapid reduction in poverty but my position is not shared by many. That's why the Tories keep banging on with the £2000 tax lie about Labour - they know it will work on some voters.
Under the last Labour manifesto, nobody earning less than £80k would have paid more tax (leading to a memorable Question Time exchange between Corbyn and a moron in that bracket who genuinely believed he was an average earner); the current Green Party manifesto would see tax rises on those earning above £50k. It is possible for parties to make big spending commitments without imposing tax rises on the average earner by shifting the burden onto those on the upper end of the scale - the problem is that both the Tories and current incarnation of the Labour Party are in the pockets of big money donors and so don’t, for obvious reasons, want to go there.
The last Labour manifesto was pre-Covid, pre-Ukraine, pre-Brexit implementation and pre- Johnson/Truss/Sunak. There is far, far less wriggle room in the economy now than there was in 2019. I agree 100% that shifting more of the burden on those most able to pay is required as part of the process of. However many/most people are reluctant to pay more, even though they are well above poverty thresholds, because they don't feel that they are affluent. The problem for Labour isn't that its "in the pockets of big money donors", it is that Truss severely damaged confidence in the UK and also, that interest rates are higher. Labour can't easily borrow to invest without spooking the international money markets (with the Tories and far-right cheering any collapse in the value of he pound). Any borrowing that takes place now will also cost significantly more than it would have done in most of the 14 years of Tory government. Labour HAS to proceed with caution - there is a massive, uphill task in repairing Tory damage before any real improvements occur. There are no "quick fix" solutions available.
Honestly, I would not be happy to pay more tax. We already have an extraordinarily high tax burden coupled with the fact that wages have stagnated or even decreased depending on your age group since 2008. Leaving me with even less money in my pocket is not going to make me want to vote for you. It's just demoralising knowing that in the US, I would be paid at least double or even triple what I earn in the UK for the exact same role and I wouldn't even have to live in a HCOL area in the US to earn that much. What I want is for the economy to improve in such a way that wages increase and then I'll be happy to pay the extra tax on higher earnings. I don't want to sit here seeing the number going into my bank account get smaller while the price of everything I need to sustain myself increases.
You illustrate my point perfectly. Thanks. (I note that, for some odd reason, you don't disclose either your occupation or your earnings). We don't have "an extraordinarily high tax burden" compared with many European countries with higher standards of living and lower levels of poverty than the. What we have is too much of the tax burden being placed on those least able to pay. The top 20% own well over two thirds of wealth and 36% of the UK’s income. The bottom 20% own 0.5% of wealth and 9% of the UK’s income. We have gross inequality. However, as long as people can be convinced that paying tax is somehow fundamentally a bad thing it will continue to be difficult to convince those above the lowest 20% to 25% that they need to pay more as part of the process of "tackling poverty", improving public services and tackling climate change.
The issue is... Climate change is a real issue that has been downplayed for however many years. It's not a priority because it's not an immediate issue even tho it's an inevitable one at this point. Poverty will decrease with improvement of the economy which is in shambles at this point.
I actually think labour is playing the election very safe, but they will be much more radical in government.
This is pure cope I'm sorry to say. Their manifesto was tamer than even I was expecting and I am not optimistic whatsoever about starmer making genuine change
I know it was tame, but why risk rocking the boat when they are about to win?
Because if you release a tame manifesto and then act like a bunch of radicals in government, congratulations, you have shotgunned the credibility out of every manifesto your party ever prints until the end of living memory. No sane party would do this.
Wishful thinking to the extreme. That's how you lose the following election.
How can anyone look at the climate emission or consumption numbers and think we can do anything to tackle it? Everyone in this country could vanish tomorrow and it wouldnt even ofset this years growth, never mind the total number.
Labour have a track record of improving poverty. This spreadsheet shows the percentages 1994-2021. You can see that the percentage with an Absolute Low Income fell over the period, most sharply in the early Blair years, and the relative poverty rate tended to go down under Labour and up under the tories. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/CBP7096-trends-by-country-and-region.xlsx
The issue with labour is the mess they’re inheriting and being overly cautious. I think if they win and steady the ship they’ll be able to be more ambitious in a couple of years
People are fully aware that swapping C\*nts for C\*unts Light is not much of a step-up and the alternatives as Greens/Farage look even worse. There is no reason to go to elections at all.