Sunak : Nett Zero But In A 'More Proportionate' Way

[Prettytom]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

TBH he wouldn't be that far wrong on that.

The worst thing for this country and the economy was suppressing society for a virus 99% of people were surviving and which had an average age of death in the early 80s.

We spent £400 billion doing it and it stoked inflation which we are now paying for.

And labour not only supported all of it they actually wanted even more of it ! Starmer himself boasted that it was Labour driving it all ! 

 

 

 

Jesus.

 

You’re on fire today. Busy day at the making up nollocks factory.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Prettytom

[Chekhov]

3 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

There you go again, inventing things I haven’t said.

Hold on, what did you mean when you posted that Nett Zero shouldn't be a party political issue then ?

Other than that people should not be given a vote on it ?

[Prettytom]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

Hold on, what did you mean when you posted that Nett Zero shouldn't be a party political issue then ?

Other than that people should not be given a vote on it ?

When did I say that?

 

I think you’ve just made that up.

 

Apologies for repeating myself, but I’m fed up of your lies

[Chekhov]

Just now, Prettytom said:

Jesus.

You’re on fire today. Busy day at the making up nollocks factory.

What exactly have  made up ?

 

FACT 1 :

Starmer and Labour not only supported lockdowns and other Covid suppression measures, they wanted even more of it.

 

FACT 2 :

The government spent around £400 Billion trying to fight the spread of Covid.

 

FACT 3 :

The current inflation spiral started as a result of the Covid suppression policy and, I have posted the graph above to prove it.

 

[Chekhov]

Just now, Prettytom said:

>>Chekhov said :  Hold on, what did you mean when you posted that Nett Zero shouldn't be a party political issue then ?

Other than that people should not be given a vote on it ?<<

 

When did I say that?

I think you’ve just made that up.

Apologies for repeating myself, but I’m fed up of your lies

Here :

 

Reducing it to yet another pawn in their game of culture war chess, really isn’t good enough.

 

I seem to remember I more than once asked you if you meant that people should not be given a choice about it at the ballot box, and you failed, more than once, to clarify that you thought they should be given said choice.

I would be delighted if you clarified that now :

 

Should the electorate be given a genuine choice at the ballot box about nett Zero, and in particular Nett Zero by 2050 "at any cost".

 

A simple yes or no would be nice.

[Prettytom]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Here :

 

Reducing it to yet another pawn in their game of culture war chess, really isn’t good enough.

 

 

Do you really think that ^^^ means this?

 

¥¥¥

 

Hold on, what did you mean when you posted that Nett Zero shouldn't be a party political issue then ?

Other than that people should not be given a vote on it ? 
 

You need to start reading what people write and stop inventing opinions for them.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Prettytom

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Prettytom said:

Do you really think that ^^^ means this?

 

¥¥¥

 

Hold on, what did you mean when you posted that Nett Zero shouldn't be a party political issue then ?

Other than that people should not be given a vote on it ? 
 

You need to start reading what people write and stop inventing opinions for them.

>>Reducing it to yet another pawn in their game of culture war chess, really isn’t good enough.<<

 

To me, particularly knowing your views on Nett Zero, I think it mean you do not think people should be given a vote on it.

But, despite that I have given you yet another chance to say exactly what you do mean, but you have declined.

So, I think, we can draw our own conclusions.

[Prettytom]

9 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

>>Reducing it to yet another pawn in their game of culture war chess, really isn’t good enough.<<

 

To me, particularly knowing your views on Nett Zero, I think it mean you do not think people should be given a vote on it.

But, despite that I have given you yet another chance to say exactly what you do mean, but you have declined.

So, I think, we can draw our own conclusions.

You’ll do that no matter what I say.

 

However, I think that my English is clear enough for the more balanced forum members to understand.

[El Cid]

On 20/09/2023 at 13:34, Chekhov said:

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is preparing to water down some of Britain’s climate commitments, saying the country must fight climate change without penalizing workers and consumers.

Does that mean that the rich will pay for us to go net-zero, we are still doing it.

[Longcol]

26 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Does that mean that the rich will pay for us to go net-zero, we are still doing it.

Fat chance of that - but they'll want contracts to do bugger all , complete with performance related bonuses.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Longcol