Current Affairs The Labour Party

[davek]

Starmer's Scottish rats...


https://news.stv.tv/politics/i-wont-work-with-reform-but-wont-turn-down-good-ideas-says-sarwar

 

[tsubaki]

Starmer's rats facing a parliamentary defeat in their efforts to allow slave produced solar panels from China to be used in the U.K.

Labour facing defeat in vote to ban green energy investments tied to Uyghur exploitation

Exclusive: cross-party backing likely for amendment to GB Energy bill aiming to block solar panels made by forced labour

www.theguardian.com

TBF that isn't what the legislation says or aims to do - they are allowed to be used now, and the most it would do is stop GBE using them; private firms, or individuals would be and are perfectly free to continue to buy them and use them in the UK.

So its basically gesture politics, and suspiciously-organised gesture politics at that given that it appears to come from IPAC (one of the rare bodies that is both funded by Soros and yet enjoys favour with various prominent rightists (including Rubio)).

 

[davek]

TBF that isn't what the legislation says or aims to do - they are allowed to be used now, and the most it would do is stop GBE using them; private firms, or individuals would be and are perfectly free to continue to buy them and use them in the UK.

So its basically gesture politics, and suspiciously-organised gesture politics at that given that it appears to come from IPAC (one of the rare bodies that is both funded by Soros and yet enjoys favour with various prominent rightists (including Rubio)).

The optics of this is the real issue: utterly horrendous for the old 'Labour' Party to be on the wrong side of that debate.

It's stuff like this where the morale of the PLP is chipped away at that'll do for Starmer in the end.

There's still enough people in the that party who give a flying one about 'growth inhibitors' - like supporting the environment and workers treated like slave labour - to make things difficult for Starmer and his inner circle of fellow rodents.

 

[tsubaki]

The optics of this is the real issue: utterly horrendous for the old 'Labour' Party to be on the wrong side of that debate.

It's stuff like this where the morale of the PLP is chipped away at that'll do for Starmer in the end.

There's still enough people in the that party who give a flying one about 'growth inhibitors' - like supporting the environment and workers treated like slave labour - to make things difficult for Starmer and his inner circle of fellow rodents.

Really surprised to see you take that stance dave, this is exactly the sort of fake (and potentially damaging) response to a real issue that defined how the Blairites and later centrists behaved. It may even be deliberately designed to prevent GB Energy from actually generating its own power (which is what it must do to drop costs) too.

The amendment that has been tabled just says this:

Clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

“(6) Financial assistance under this section must not be provided if there exists credible
evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain of any company designated
Great British Energy."

... which would basically mean that if evidence exists - just exists, not that it has been judicially reviewed, assessed by ministers or anything else - that modern slavery has occured anywhere in the energy supply chain of any GBE entity and from any source then the government cannot provide financial assistance to GBE as a whole. That could be anything, including providing mobile phones or EVs (given the well known issues around rare earth minerals and how they are mined). What does financial assistance mean in that section of the Bill?

(2) Financial assistance under this section may be provided in any form and in
particular may be provided—
(a) by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity,
(b) by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of,
a body corporate,
(c) by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,
(d) pursuant to a contract, or
(e) by incurring expenditure for the benefit of Great British Energy.

... so basically anything the government could do to help GBE reduce costs for consumers such as buying the standby peak generation stations, building new nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydro or any other sites and keeping them as part of GBE cannot happen if "credible evidence" exists.

Or to put it another way, this reeks to me of well-funded lobby groups trying to kill off, via a backdoor, something that would threaten those who have historically funded politicians in order to enrich themselves.

What the PRC is alleged to be doing deserves serious responses; this (to me) looks like it is rather more aimed at GBE than anything the PRC are doing.

 

[davek]

Really surprised to see you take that stance dave, this is exactly the sort of fake (and potentially damaging) response to a real issue that defined how the Blairites and later centrists behaved. It may even be deliberately designed to prevent GB Energy from actually generating its own power (which is what it must do to drop costs) too.

The amendment that has been tabled just says this:

Clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

“(6) Financial assistance under this section must not be provided if there exists credible
evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain of any company designated
Great British Energy."

... which would basically mean that if evidence exists - just exists, not that it has been judicially reviewed, assessed by ministers or anything else - that modern slavery has occured anywhere in the energy supply chain of any GBE entity and from any source then the government cannot provide financial assistance to GBE as a whole. That could be anything, including providing mobile phones or EVs (given the well known issues around rare earth minerals and how they are mined). What does financial assistance mean in that section of the Bill?

(2) Financial assistance under this section may be provided in any form and in
particular may be provided—
(a) by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity,
(b) by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of,
a body corporate,
(c) by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,
(d) pursuant to a contract, or
(e) by incurring expenditure for the benefit of Great British Energy.

... so basically anything the government could do to help GBE reduce costs for consumers such as buying the standby peak generation stations, building new nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydro or any other sites and keeping them as part of GBE cannot happen if "credible evidence" exists.

Or to put it another way, this reeks to me of well-funded lobby groups trying to kill off, via a backdoor, something that would threaten those who have historically funded politicians in order to enrich themselves.

What the PRC is alleged to be doing deserves serious responses; this (to me) looks like it is rather more aimed at GBE than anything the PRC are doing.

Sometimes the objectives of well-funded lobby groups coincide with the right thing to do...ie closing the door to products that - in any way shape or form - have been made with coerced labour.

As for all that going ahead and it'd "reduce costs for consumers": that's pie in the sky stuff. Do you really see energy prices going back to previous pre-Ukraine War levels?

No, what we have here - regardless of who the bedfellows will be - is a move to deny Starmer's government the chance to act like utter hypocrites who talk a good game on human rights but really dont give a about them if it gets in the way of some mythical 'growth'.

 

[tsubaki]

Sometimes the objectives of well-funded lobby groups coincide with the right thing to do...ie closing the door to products that - in any way shape or form - have been made with coerced labour.

As for all that going ahead and it'd "reduce costs for consumers": that's pie in the sky stuff. Do you really see energy prices going back to previous pre-Ukraine War levels?

No, what we have here - regardless of who the bedfellows will be - is a move to deny Starmer's government the chance to act like utter hypocrites who talk a good game on human rights but really dont give a about them if it gets in the way of some mythical 'growth'.

Dave if GBE had its own generating capacity, especially standby peak generation capacity, bills would absolutely go down; the cost at peak times is astronomical and it’s all passed on to us.

In terms of “objectives of well-funded lobby groups coincide with the right thing to do”, again please note that this amendment does nothing to stop private firms, private individuals or future / already existing energy firms using these materials. It wouldn’t even prevent those energy firms from selling energy generated from those materials to GBE.

The only thing it would stop would be the government funding any part of GBE, for any reason, if *any* aspect of GBEs supply chain had anything in it for which credible evidence existed was linked to modern slavery. As I said above, that is conceivably anything - from mobile phones to EVs to staff uniforms.

 

[davek]

Dave if GBE had its own generating capacity, especially standby peak generation capacity, bills would absolutely go down; the cost at peak times is astronomical and it’s all passed on to us.

In terms of “objectives of well-funded lobby groups coincide with the right thing to do”, again please note that this amendment does nothing to stop private firms, private individuals or future / already existing energy firms using these materials. It wouldn’t even prevent those energy firms from selling energy generated from those materials to GBE.

The only thing it would stop would be the government funding any part of GBE, for any reason, if *any* aspect of GBEs supply chain had anything in it for which credible evidence existed was linked to modern slavery. As I said above, that is conceivably anything - from mobile phones to EVs to staff uniforms.

What can I say other than things get complicated when the issue of slavery is intertwined with business and government.

Those in the LP will ask you, I suppose, "if this is allowed without question where does it stop?" Would it be ok to allow the importation of football gear such as footballs and kit made in India or Pakistan under slave-like conditions because it'd help cut the cost of living crisis - and in any case they'd get blag one at a local market stall?

 

[davek]

It'll be interesting to hear what Starmer has to say about Trump's plan to colonise the Gaza Strip at PMQs today.

 

[tsubaki]

What can I say other than things get complicated when the issue of slavery is intertwined with business and government.

Those in the LP will ask you, I suppose, "if this is allowed without question where does it stop?" Would it be ok to allow the importation of football gear such as footballs and kit made in India or Pakistan under slave-like conditions because it'd help cut the cost of living crisis - and in any case they'd get blag one at a local market stall?

To use your analogy Dave, this amendment just prevents the government from spending any money on GBE if anyone in that organization buys a football of that kind and uses it for a works football tournament.

You and I can still buy the football, the government can still get tax from the sake of the football but the government can’t do anything to fund cheaper energy - renationalisation, investment in new generation and storage capacity etc - for us via GBE if someone in GBE uses a football like that for something in it’s energy supply chain (like organising a football tournament between staff).

 

[davek]

To use your analogy Dave, this amendment just prevents the government from spending any money on GBE if anyone in that organization buys a football of that kind and uses it for a works football tournament.

You and I can still buy the football, the government can still get tax from the sake of the football but the government can’t do anything to fund cheaper energy - renationalisation, investment in new generation and storage capacity etc - for us via GBE if someone in GBE uses a football like that for something in it’s energy supply chain (like organising a football tournament between staff).

Surely it just means HM Government have to find another alternative supplier that doesn't exploit people being used as coerced labour? It's up to them to set the industry standard that private energy suppliers should/must follow?

 

[davek]

Starmer's Gang getting ready to cave in to Trump on Chagos Island handover.

Concern in Downing Street over Chagos Islands handover deal

Senior figures have reservations over agreement to cede sovereignty over islands to Mauritius, Labour sources say

www.theguardian.com

 

[Yarrgh]

What does he do then? Rock the economy whilst it's still fragile just to act a hard man? Gad handling Trump isn't the stick I'd beat Starmer with.

I have done a 180 on this. Tell him to do one Starmer. In as non self-destructive way as possible but still tell him to do one.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

@davek https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/05/labour-left-keir-starmer-power-right-britain

 

[tsubaki]

Surely it just means HM Government have to find another alternative supplier that doesn't exploit people being used as coerced labour? It's up to them to set the industry standard that private energy suppliers should/must follow?

Nope, Dave. If that was the aim they’d have said that - read the amendment again, credible evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain of any company called Great British Energy.

This is fairly obviously aimed at GBE, preventing it from being an independent energy generator (which is the only way it would ever work at reducing costs). If it passed, GBE couldn’t get financial support off HMG - to do so would require legal checks on everything GBE ever bought, at least for the things in question and conceivably for the things used to make the things in question. These would be ruinously expensive.

It wouldn’t affect the rest of HMG, any other part of the industry (except to mean that GBE couldn’t take them over with public funds) or anyone else. It wouldn’t set a standard either.

 

[davek]

@davek https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/05/labour-left-keir-starmer-power-right-britain

Two things:

1/ Owen Jones is not right when he agrees with that books authors that Starmer is a captive creature of his aides. He is of exactly the same right wing market-worshipping mentality and is their leader. He's not a puppet. Saying he is just hands him some wriggle room.

2/ Jones is completely right when he calls for a red-green alliance and LP members on the left to split from that party. It's the only hope we have left of avoiding a Tory-Reform alliance winning in 2029.