The promise was unambiguous. And it was obvious.
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves declared her intention to become the first "green" chancellor of the UK at the Labour Party's 2021 conference.
She promised to invest £28 billion annually to "green" the economy up until 2030 in order to demonstrate her credentials.
One of the defining policies of Labour was the Green Prosperity Plan. It helped the party draw a line in the sand with the government.
In response to the climate crisis, Ms. Reeves promised that there would be "no dither, and no delay.".
Additionally, it was a response to the government's promise to "level up.".
The lent funds would support well-paying jobs in the energy sector throughout the UK.
Why then, if Labour wins, has Ms. Reeves delayed implementing the pledge until the second half of the next Parliament?
Why was a £28 billion commitment essentially downgraded to a target?
The first justification is clear.
Ms. Reeves claims that in 2021, she was "green" in a different sense because she was unaware of the economic effects that Prime Minister Liz Truss would have.
Indeed, a war in Europe and a crisis in the cost of living have made the political and economic landscape more unsteady.
The £28 billion pledge becomes more expensive to fulfill as interest rates rise along with the cost of borrowing.
And Ms. Reeves wants to stress that in the event that any spending commitments conflict with her financial rules, the rules will always prevail.
But did the £28 billion green pledge really violate her policies?
"It is essential for our future prosperity that we retain the ability to borrow for investing in capital projects that over time will pay for themselves," Labour stated in their own in-depth explanation of their fiscal rules.
"Labor recognizes the need for investment, which raises the growth rate of our economy by boosting demand and productivity.
Consequently, investment is not included in our target for reducing the deficit. ".
Therefore, borrowing for future technology and job investments shouldn't violate that fiscal rule.
Ms. Reeves mentioned this morning that there is another rule, which is to have debt decline as a percentage of GDP, or gross domestic product, a gauge of economic activity.
Though I recall some senior Labour figures at the 2021 conference questioning the wisdom of borrowing the equivalent of half the defence budget every year even then, complying with that rule may have helped to put the £28 billion on hold.
Because economic forecasts can vary by much greater amounts, some senior Labour figures are much less convinced that £28 billion would necessarily violate the debt rule.
The fact that £28 billion shouldn't be poured into the economy right away is one of the other arguments for the change in stance.
That's because it will require time to train employees and establish and strengthen supply chains. In light of this, the amount was "ramped up" to £28 billion.
Even though today's announcement felt like a bit of a handbrake turn, one shadow minister insisted that it was still necessary and sane.
The scope of the ambition remained the same, but pragmatically, the shadow chancellor was just refraining from promising spending that would be challenging to carry out.
However, all of this must have been known in 2021 as well.
What makes the U-turn announcement today?
Within Labour's Treasury team, the change in position was long debated.
Engaging with investors convinced them that there was enthusiasm for green industries and that the private sector would supply some of the new green jobs without state assistance, so the government may not need to pump in a significant amount of money right away.
Additionally, even though Ms. Reeves abandoned the £28 billion pledge during the first half of the Parliament, this does not imply that a Labour administration would forgo funding for its Green Prosperity Plan.
According to what I understand, funds will be prioritized for projects like nuclear and hydrogen where the private sector would not invest without government support.
Making firm promises based on borrowing has become more difficult as a result of the market volatility.
But it is apparent that politics as well as economics were involved in today's announcement.
Within Labour's ranks, there have been complaints and growls about the policy's implementation over the past two years, and internal criticism has increased rather than decreased.
One worry was that the £28 billion in borrowing was better known than what it would be used for, such as home insulation, heat pumps, and new carbon capture technology.
But this past week, it was abundantly clear that the Conservatives believed they had identified a weakness that could be exploited.
The alleged risks of the policy were prominently displayed on the Daily Mail's front page this week. The extra borrowing would increase interest costs, which would raise mortgage costs.
Conservative ministers also made reference to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Paul Johnson, its director, had forewarned that while increased borrowing would inject cash into the economy, it also raises interest rates.
Since Labour has been criticizing the Conservatives for their handling of the economy and the "mortgage premium" they assert the government has caused, it was understandable that they did not want the same criticism to be leveled at them. Ms. Reeves this morning worked to dispel a potential drawback.
However, some within Labour believe the party should have more forcefully argued that borrowing for investments is distinct from borrowing for daily expenses in order to protect itself from criticism.
Although the gap between Labour and the opposition is large in the opinion polls, pessimists within the opposition party worry that it is shallow.
Building economic credibility is regarded as essential.
Today's change in strategy isn't free, even though it may have been the lesser of two evils.
The party pledged to implement a net-zero energy system by 2030.
Is this target at risk as well, even with potentially significantly less investment?
The shadow chancellor was watering down her own most prominent pledge, in contrast to many other left-wing commitments that have been abandoned, where the leadership doesn't really care about the backlash.
The Conservatives have been able to proclaim that Labour's economic plans are "in tatters" because of this alone.
Labour will continue to assert that they have distinct differences with the government because they remain committed to their Green Prosperity Plan, just not in the original timeframe.
But one of their main points has been that the UK will fall behind if it doesn't follow the US' lead in subsidizing domestic green industries. And swiftly.
The Labour case is not completely destroyed, but it could be made weaker by a delay.
But among those who are unquestionably not on the Corbyn left, there is another worry.
Some target voters might become uninterested if competence and fiscal credibility are emphasized over commitments to combat climate change.
