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

[Prettytom]

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Politicians make promises they find they can't actually keep because they discover they haven't actually got enough money to carry them out.

This is different because being more pragmatic and flexible over "Nett Zero" will, err, actually save them (and us) money.

It’s just an example of you believing something because you agree with it. There’s a phrase for that.

 

It doesn’t change the fact that it is just a cynical election stunt from a PM who is devoid of useful ideas.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Prettytom

[Prettytom]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Translation : the people may not want it but give it to them anyway, "we know best, it's for their own good".

Democracy is "flexible", well it is to authoritarians.

I’m going to ask you very politely to stop doing that. I’m absolutely sick of you claiming to know what I’m thinking, then presenting your warped interpretation as fact.

 

I’m sure that I’m not alone.

 

I’d be grateful if  you would stick to your own (somewhat unusual) world view. Stop misrepresenting mine.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Prettytom

[rogets]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

There speaks someone who either doesn't drive, or can afford an electric car.....

 

 

Mine only cost £100,000

[Pyrotequila]

22 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

There speaks someone who either doesn't drive, or can afford an electric car.....

There speaks a poor excuse of a troll you mean?

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

“For too many years politicians in governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs," Sunak said in a statement. "Instead they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.”

 

And he is spot on.

Yes its all a con, did the Government rejoice when world fuel and energy prices skyrocketed!

 

Fuel duty paid by the ordinary family is 20% VAT and 53% fuel duty(total = 73%) - it is damaging to the planet, just the same as domestic fuel which is taxed at a mere 5%.

 

Labour brought in aviation taxes in 2009. Aviation is responsible for a rapidly-growing proportion of greenhouse gas
emissions. But over 90% of flights incur a charge of less than £13, so it can be more costly to catch the train than fly, dispite Government subsidies.

 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Prettytom said:

>>Chekhov said:  Politicians make promises they find they can't actually keep because they discover they haven't actually got enough money to carry them out.

This is different because being more pragmatic and flexible over "Nett Zero" will, err, actually save them (and us) money.<<

 

It’s just an example of you believing something because you agree with it. There’s a phrase for that.

It doesn’t change the fact that it is just a cynical election stunt from a PM who is devoid of useful ideas.

What have I said which anyone could disagree with, specifically I mean.

[Chekhov]

55 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

>Prettytom said: Reducing it [attempts to reach Nett Zero] to yet another pawn in their game of culture war chess, really isn’t good enough.<

 

>>Chekhov said: Translation : the people may not want it but give it to them anyway, "we know best, it's for their own good".

Democracy is "flexible", well it is to authoritarians.<<

 

I’m going to ask you very politely to stop doing that. I’m absolutely sick of you claiming to know what I’m thinking, then presenting your warped interpretation as fact.

I’m sure that I’m not alone.

I’d be grateful if  you would stick to your own (somewhat unusual) world view. Stop misrepresenting mine.

What other interpretation can there be ? ! ?

You basically say that the people should not be asked what they want (as regards Nett Zero), it should be presented as a fait accompli.

Tell me, what "interpretation" did you have in mind (if not the one I have clarified for our readers) ?

[Prettytom]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

What other interpretation can there be ? ! ?

You basically say that the people should not be asked what they want (as regards Nett Zero), it should be presented as a fait accompli.

Tell me, what "interpretation" did you have in mind (if not the one I have clarified for our readers) ?

How did you get from my statement, to your “translation”? They are poles apart.

 

If English isn’t your first language, let me know and I’ll cut you a bit of slack.

 

Otherwise, try reading what I wrote and think about it a bit.

 

And stop making stuff up on behalf of others. It is a ridiculously childish form of debate.

[Chekhov]

50 minutes ago, Pyrotequila said:

>rogets said:To be honest we all have to be brave, I for one am sick of being stuck in traffic jams and I think something needs to be done.

I think, unless it is an electric car, all cars registered before March 2021 should be scrapped<

 

>>Chekhov said: There speaks someone who either doesn't drive, or can afford an electric car.....<<

 

There speaks a poor excuse of a troll you mean?

How is that trolling ?

Tell me, how many people who need a car but cannot afford an electric car, would want only electric cars to be allowed on the roads ?

This is the inescapable fact.

At the moment anyone can go and buy a car for less that £1K which will reasonably reliably get them to Penzance or John O'Groats for that matter, or even both.

Even if they get the infrastructure to allow adequate recharging, do you genuinely believe once cars all have to be electric that poorer people will be able to go a buy a reliable car for a grand ?

Really ? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

How did you get from my statement, to your “translation”? They are poles apart.

 

If English isn’t your first language, let me know and I’ll cut you a bit of slack.

 

Otherwise, try reading what I wrote and think about it a bit.

 

And stop making stuff up on behalf of others. It is a ridiculously childish form of debate.

Chekhov has a habit of replying,  not to what you wrote,  but to what he's decided you think.

Many a time have I had that debate and been misquoted whilst he tells me what I think and answers that instead.

I don't waste my time arguing with him any more