'The Labour Party seems to be frightened of ideas,' claims Jacob Rees-Mogg

This is, of course, a non-plan that achieved nothing. Mostly consisting of platitudes and virtue-signalling ideas by cracking down on smugglers or solving humanitarian crises not within the UK Government's power.

But this theme of creating five-point non-plans doesn't end with illegal migration.

Labour's entire ticket is based on another five-point non-plan. The real test for political policies is to ask if anyone would ever say the reverse.

If they don't, it tends to be fatuous.

So let's look at Labour's growth mission which comes with another five-point plan that includes the routine platitudes of New Labour such as 'providing stability, seizing opportunities or giving working people opportunities.'

No points for the opposite here.

Then there's the plan to switch on Great British Energy. But in recent developments there may not be any money for this. They want to get the NHS back on its feet, including improving cancer survival rates and providing more care in the community.

But who is going to say that they don't want to improve cancer survival rates? Fourth they want to take back our streets, but again, is there anyone calling for the streets to be abandoned?

Fifth is breaking down barriers to opportunity and ensuring that there is, 'a world-class teacher in every classroom.' Did a political party last call for that to be a complete dud in every classroom?

Did a political party last call for that to be a complete dud in every classroom? So it's clear that no one would say the opposite of most of these things, which makes them pointless.

They're not real policies. They are just statements of worthy but pretty universal intent. Would Rishi Sunak conceivably say we shouldn't provide care in the community, or that we shouldn't provide opportunities or stability?

Of course not. They are meaningless platitudes. But we might have one concrete position from Sir Keir Starmer, the man himself. That is, he's going to abandon his 28 billion annual green spending pledge. No doubt he will claim this is because of a lack of money. But this isn't strictly true, because last June, when the Labour Party recommitted to the spending pledge, fiscal headroom increased and the cost of borrowing fell.

So could it be that Sir Keir Starmer is a sceptic of the Net Zero agenda itself? Surely, even Keir Starmer can abandon a signature Net Zero pledge of his. Doesn't this mean that Rishi Sunak can go further in rolling back the costly green policies already in place?

We know that net Zero is seriously harming our industry such as in the steel case. As we discussed last week in Scunthorpe, we know that boiler companies have already begun increasing costs in anticipation of a boiler tax which we hope is going to be scrapped.

We know that green energy is unreliable and technology simply isn't yet ready. And we now know that electric cars don't work that well, particularly when it's cold, which is why people aren't buying them.

Rishi Sunak should take a leaf out of Secure Starmer's book and roll back the green agenda even further.