A clear promise was made. And it was noticeable.
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, declared her intention to become the first "green" chancellor of the UK at the Labour Party conference in 2021.
She promised to invest £28 billion a year, every year, until 2030 to "green" the economy, underscoring her credentials.
One of Labour's defining principles was the Green Prosperity Plan. It established a distinct line between the party and the government.
There would be "no dither, and no delay," according to Ms. Reeves, in addressing the climate crisis.
It was also a response to the government's pledge to "level up.".
The borrowed money would support well-paying jobs in the energy sector across the entire United Kingdom.
So why, if Labour wins, has Ms. Reeves pushed the promise into the second half of the next Parliament?
Why was a £28 billion pledge essentially turned into a target?
The initial explanation is clear.
In hindsight, Ms. Reeves claims that she was "green" in a different sense in 2021 because she didn't anticipate the effects that then-Prime Minister Liz Truss would have on the economy.
A war in Europe and a cost-of-living crisis have indeed made the political and economic landscape more unsteady.
The cost of borrowing goes up as interest rates rise, increasing the cost of delivering the £28 billion pledge.
The rules, Ms. Reeves wants to stress, would always prevail if any spending commitments conflicted with them.
But did her rules really conflict with the £28 billion green pledge?
Labour stated in their own thorough explanation of their fiscal policies: "It is crucial for our future prosperity that we maintain the ability to borrow for investing in capital projects that will eventually pay for themselves.
"Labor acknowledges the need for investment, which boosts our economy's growth rate by boosting demand and productivity.
"And for that reason, investment is not included in our target for reducing the deficit. ".
Therefore, borrowing should not violate that fiscal rule in order to invest in future technology and jobs.
However, Ms. Reeves mentioned another rule this morning: debt should decrease as a percentage of GDP, or gross domestic product, a gauge of economic activity.
Meeting that requirement may have helped to put the £28 billion on hold, though I recall some senior Labour figures at the 2021 conference questioning the wisdom of borrowing the equivalent of half the annual defense budget even then.
Furthermore, some senior Labour figures aren't so sure that £28 billion would necessarily violate the debt limit because economic projections are subject to far greater fluctuations.
The argument that £28 billion shouldn't be poured into the economy immediately is one of the additional justifications for the change of position.
This is because building and sustaining supply chains as well as training employees will take time. so "ramping up" to £28 billion.
While today's announcement felt a little bit like a handbrake turn, one shadow minister said it was still necessary and logical.
Although the scale of the ambition remained the same, the shadow chancellor was acting pragmatically by refraining from committing to spending that would be challenging to implement.
But all of this had to be known in 2021 as well.
So why make the U-turn announcement now?
Within Labour's Treasury team, the change of position was debated for some time.
Engaging with investors persuaded them that there was enthusiasm for green industries, which meant that the government may not need to immediately pump in a sizable amount of money because the private sector would supply some of the new green jobs on its own.
Even though Ms. Reeves abandoned the £28 billion pledge during the first half of the Parliament, a Labour administration would still invest money in its Green Prosperity Plan.
According to what I understand, funding will be given preference to initiatives like nuclear and hydrogen that the private sector would not undertake on its own.
When it comes to making firm promises based on borrowing, the market volatility has also focused minds.
However, it is apparent that politics, rather than just economics, was a factor in today's announcement.
Within Labour's ranks over the past two years, there have been complaints and growls about how the policy has fared, 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, which ranged from new carbon capture technology to home insulation and heat pumps.
However, it became abundantly clear this week that the Conservatives believed they had identified a weakness that could be exploited.
This week, the Daily Mail's front page blared about the alleged risks of the policy, claiming that the additional borrowing would raise interest rates and, as a result, mortgage costs.
Conservative ministers also cited the unbiased Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Paul Johnson, the organization's director, had issued a warning that while increased borrowing would inject cash into the economy, interest rates would also rise.
It was understandable that Labour did not want the same attack to be aimed at them, and Ms. Reeves this morning tried to eliminate a potential negative. Labour has been criticizing the Conservatives for their handling of the economy and the "mortgage premium" they claim the government has caused.
However, some party members feel that Labour could have better defended itself from criticism by emphasizing that borrowing for investments is distinct from borrowing for daily expenses.
Though Labour has a sizable lead in the polls, pessimists within their ranks worry that it may only be temporary.
Credibility in the economy is seen as essential.
Although it might have been the lesser of two evils, today's strategy change isn't without cost.
By 2030, the party plans to have a net-zero energy system.
But is this target in jeopardy too, with potentially much less investment?
And in contrast to many of the left-wing pledges that have been abandoned, where the leadership doesn't really care about the backlash, this was the shadow chancellor softening her own most well-known commitment.
That has given the Conservatives license to declare that Labour's economic plans are "in tatters.".
Labour will continue to assert that they have distinct differences with the government because they are still committed to their Green Prosperity Plan, just not in the original timeframe.
But one of their main points has been that if the UK doesn't follow the US in providing subsidies to domestic green industries, it will fall behind. And quickly.
The Labour case is not destroyed by a delay, but it could be made weaker.
However, there is another worry among people who most definitely do not belong to the Corbyn left.
Some of the target voters may become uninterested if competence and fiscal credibility are emphasized over climate change commitments.
