Don't Vote Labour (Part 1)
Net Zero; JSO; Anti-protest Laws
As I compose this introduction, Labour have just won two by-elections - one with a historic 28.5% swing. It does seem that we are heading for a Labour government, largely by default. Fatigue with the Tories, and indeed within the Tories, has put the flip-flopping charisma vacuum known as Keir Starmer on path to victory. However, we don't have to like it, and we don't have to help them get there. We need to remember their many faults and - frankly - betrayals.
This applies across the political divide, as they court then dump different groups according to polling and the focus group; as they feverishly seek power. We need to see they are not the answer and won't change anything that needs changing.
If we can't face voting for the Conservatives (and why should we?) we should vote for smaller parties or independents. At least then we'll know we took a stand and went with our principles. Starmer wouldn't know a principle any more than he could define a woman.
Net Zero and 'clean energy'
Labour have consistently been pushing 'Net Zero' and other policies concerned with tackling the so-called 'climate crisis'. Ed Miliband, a man obsessed with such things and particularly rolling out renewable energy, would be their Energy Minister.
They are pledging to switch completely to 'clean energy' by 2030 - only six years away. This would mean no use of fossil fuels whatsoever, in heating, cooking, electricity generation or cars. It's an absurd promise to make. Nobody can seriously believe it is possible.
Part of the 'clean energy' agenda has been to oppose new extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea and Irish Sea. Labour for a long while took this line. When they realised it was polling badly and the Tories announced they would grant more licenses to extractors, Labour said they would honour those licences, but not agree to any more. Although it is practical for a prospective government to agree to honour agreements signed previously, it is hardly a principled stand. They could say they would revoke the licenses.
On top of this they have abandoned their 'Green Prosperity Plan' to invest in 'green industries'. They were pledging £28 billion every year from 2024 until 2030 (their favourite date), but in June they said they would only reach £28 billion per year after 2027. As with many things they used 'the different economic conditions' or 'the Tories crashing the economy' to justify the revision. Within the last few weeks, there were rumours the policy would be scrapped entirely, with Rachel Reeves not acknowledging the proposed sum at all. Labour then changed the amount to £24 billion over five years.
The U-turn has been couched as smart pragmatism in the face of the post-Truss economy, with Wes Streeting eulogised for a 'masterful' spin job on Question Time. This is despite the fact the scheme was hatched in 2021, when the country was locked down (thanks to Labour support) and it was obvious the economy was going to take a massive hit. Then was not the time to make such pledges either - but of course it had political capital for Starmer at that point, so he did. It is not inconceivable the promised amount will drop further, or indeed that the whole plan will be abandoned - this side of the election or beyond.
So wherever you sit on the green debate, Labour is not to be trusted. If they do follow through with their promise to stop gas and oil extraction, it will force us to depend on unreliable renewable energy and cut us off from an obvious source of economic growth and jobs during very tough times. If you believe there is a climate crisis and want to stop the use of fossil fuels, their tweaking of their policies demonstrate they lack resolve, will buckle for big business, and may break their pledges further once in power.
'Just Stop Oil'
One of Labour's largest donors is Dale Vince, a businessman who was the main donor for 'Just Stop Oil' (JSO). As of January 2023, Vince's firm 'Ecotricity' had donated £360,000 since the 2019 General Election. Vince also donated £20,000 to Starmer's leadership campaign and £10,000 to Angela Rayner. In the past Starmer made supportive remarks towards 'Extinction Rebellion', and clearly taking money from Vince demonstrates he was not too concerned with having links to JSO. Public anger has been slowly simmering against JSO and other groups after several years of incessant activism, including vandalism, blocking roads, disruption of sporting events and desecration of paintings. It took Starmer surprisingly long to work this out, and presumably Dale Vince got a talking to, because he recently announced he would no longer be funding JSO, as getting Labour elected was more important for 'the cause'. Rather than dump Vince and his wallet, it seems they got Vince to dump the brainwashed eco cult instead.
But the damage is done. If Vince is happy to be funding Labour, one can assume Labour and JSO's agendas are similar. And Labour kept taking his money throughout the group's criminal antics. They are banking on not enough people knowing or remembering, but some of us keep the receipts.
Anti-protest legislation
Tied up with the 'Just Stop Oil' issue is the legislation the Conservatives brought in to tackle the protest group; or rather they brought it in using JSO's chaos as a pretext. The 'Black Lives Matter' unrest in 2020 also seems to have inspired it.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act is admittedly authoritarian. It does not prohibit protest as many claim, but it makes it harder to hold a demonstration and easier to shut one down by citing 'noise' or 'nuisance'. This is despite the fact we already had laws to deal with everything JSO, Extinction Rebellion or 'Insulate Britain' was doing - laws against obstruction, criminal damage, trespass, and even noise pollution. The police would hardly enforce these, however, and would just stand by - even protecting the protesters from members of the public and giving them bottles of water. The protests have also largely continued, without the new law being invoked.
The legislation was, therefore, unnecessary, and probably about a greater agenda than some troublesome hippies. Essentially we are in a turbulent age where protests are more likely. We've had health lockdowns, there are environmental restrictions, regressive taxes, intrusive surveillance and even some form of social credit system on the cards. The migration crisis has led to recrimination, creating tension and flashpoints. A cursory glance of mainland Europe will show the potential for civil unrest and emerging radical politics. Thus the government - any government - needs to be able to control this. If they can aggressively put down demonstrations as and when they want to, it suits them.
A group that was making a lot of fuss about the measures was the Labour Party, especially the backbenchers and the left of the party. Many turned against it after the bungled intervention of police when a vigil was held for Sarah Everard, the young woman raped and murdered by a rogue policeman in 2021. Because it was against lockdown rules the Met waded in to break it up, and ugly scenes occurred. The left applied selective outrage because of the subject, where before it was happy to see anti-lockdown protests forcibly crushed.
The standard line among Labour politicians and supporters was that the Tories were being borderline fascists and stoking a culture war. Some Labour MPs supported the unfortunately named 'Kill the Bill' campaign ('the Bill' is slang for the police). The Shadow Home Secretary, David Lammy, was particularly critical of the legislation, playing up the supposedly negative implications for black people. Starmer joined in airing his concerns and whipped his MPs to vote against it. This all changed once the bill was passed, however.
When asked if he would repeal the Act if he got into power, Starmer performed an astonishing volte-face even by his standards. He said he would have to wait for the legislation to 'bed down' before he could make any decision. According to him new governments shouldn't spend time 'unpicking everything a previous government has done'. Lammy backed him up by saying repealing it would take 'too long'. So much for principle. If indeed this was a dreadful fascist law, then why would the virtuous Labour Party back down once it had the chance to remove it? The reasons for the U-turn are likely threefold. Firstly, the polling was bad when Labour opposed the Act, looking as if they were on the side of criminals and unpopular protest groups. Secondly it was a way to attack the government, rather than a moral issue for them. Thirdly they now anticipated winning the election and realised they'd be able to use those powers when in charge. Indeed, they might feel they'll have to use those powers in order to survive the political storms on the horizon.
One wonders whether this reluctance to repeal legislation will apply to other controversial laws that Labour have moaned about. They have said, for instance, that they will repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which limits the ability for certain work sectors to do a full strike. But given how many pledges Starmer's Labour have broken, do we really believe this?
More reasons not to vote Labour will follow soon!