FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Net zero sensibly
Net zero sensibly
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Well. It looks like there is going to be some significant u turns here. Thank god. 1st off appear to be the absolutely ludicrous idea all new cars had to be electric or hybrid by 2030. This is being pushed back to 2035. I still can't see the feasibility. But hey ho. Another is the gas boilers all being phased out. Another barmy idea. As elections time draws ever closer we are seeing the battle line seeing drawn. I can't see myself voting for rishi. However. Hes absolutely caught starmer with his pants down in the same week stsrmer was widely ridiculed for his immigration policy. Rishi just needs to get on with his own plans here and deliver a way of stopping the boats to stop voter apathy " Who are you going to vote for? There's no realistic interest in actually stopping boats, the tactics are immigrants and anti net zero, which obviously appeals to you. I have a feeling the wider electorate will care more about being poorer and the conservative will get a hammering. | |||
| |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. " That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week. | |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week." Are you saying the Tories are finished? As that is what you've just agreed with! | |||
"Well. It looks like there is going to be some significant u turns here. Thank god. 1st off appear to be the absolutely ludicrous idea all new cars had to be electric or hybrid by 2030. This is being pushed back to 2035. I still can't see the feasibility. But hey ho. Another is the gas boilers all being phased out. Another barmy idea. As elections time draws ever closer we are seeing the battle line seeing drawn. I can't see myself voting for rishi. However. Hes absolutely caught starmer with his pants down in the same week stsrmer was widely ridiculed for his immigration policy. Rishi just needs to get on with his own plans here and deliver a way of stopping the boats to stop voter apathy Who are you going to vote for? There's no realistic interest in actually stopping boats, the tactics are immigrants and anti net zero, which obviously appeals to you. I have a feeling the wider electorate will care more about being poorer and the conservative will get a hammering. " Reform are hard anti-science. Could be a good shout. | |||
| |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. " Sadly you're right. The general public have been convinced that a few punters in a boat is a bigger threat to them than climate change. What a time to be alive. | |||
| |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. " I agree they have only a year left. It's a good point about being able to say what they like. Often it's the incumbent government who expect to do well at a GE that has to be careful what they say as they will probably have to enact it. This time around it's Labour who are having to be careful what they say as they know they will almost certainly be in government and be held to their promises. | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. Sadly you're right. The general public have been convinced that a few punters in a boat is a bigger threat to them than climate change. What a time to be alive." Is it only a 'few' then? Those lucky few must be living well off £3 billion a year. | |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week. Are you saying the Tories are finished? As that is what you've just agreed with!" I won't be voting for rishi. Currently labour have poor policies. I think tories won't win a majority I tbe next election. It should be a labour majority but probably won't be unless starmer does introduce some workable policies in his manifesto | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. " The e.u have laughed at starmer. It has no legs. It's 1-0 Dialing back the net zero speed commitments is listening to the public. Which is a good move from rishi as his core voter base was nit impressed. This was one of TM and BJ major problems. | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. Sadly you're right. The general public have been convinced that a few punters in a boat is a bigger threat to them than climate change. What a time to be alive. Is it only a 'few' then? Those lucky few must be living well off £3 billion a year." not a fair comparison. True, 3.7bn has been spent as part of foreign aid. But Ukraine fell under this. And some of the Afghan schemes. Ukraine has 227k of visas. Afghan has 24k. (These may be "totals" not in year) Ytd Upto Oct 2022 had 38k via boat (I'm quoting from the same document hence old and slightly inconsistent numbers) | |||
| |||
| |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.”" With the current crop of politicians (of all parties) they will be struggling to get any of those. We'll find out about Sunak's lack of ambition later this afternoon. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.”" Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030. | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc." Don't worry about any of that. Look at those people in a small boat over there. - | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030." who is we? | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? " People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems." Absolutely  | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. Don't worry about any of that. Look at those people in a small boat over there. -" You can't respond with sensible discussion can you? | |||
| |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems." Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas." it was off the back of a consultation. While not directly answering your question... it was more than finger in the air. | |||
| |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas.it was off the back of a consultation. While not directly answering your question... it was more than finger in the air. " They got it wrong though, i thought it was obvious especially around EV and infrastructure, well it seems obvious to me. Isn’t it better to reassess than plough on in hope. | |||
 | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts "So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050. Blame the tories  | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories "On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off? | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"Haven't really been for the last year but better off than in 2010? Yes I am. | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
Haven't really been for the last year but better off than in 2010?
Yes I am. "I mean I am as well. 13 years ago I was just starting out in my career, whereas now 13 years later I’m doing much better, but would you say the standard of living in the country has improved? In my opinion across everyone it’s probably not too different | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? " The general public | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems." People who see the huge cost and impracticality | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
Haven't really been for the last year but better off than in 2010?
Yes I am.
I mean I am as well. 13 years ago I was just starting out in my career, whereas now 13 years later I’m doing much better, but would you say the standard of living in the country has improved? In my opinion across everyone it’s probably not too different"That's not the question you asked though
I'm not here to judge everyone else's 'standard of living', I'm one of those c*nts who will care about my own before others. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas.it was off the back of a consultation. While not directly answering your question... it was more than finger in the air. " Have you got the consultation to hand as to who was asked. I dont remember the general public being g part of it. | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"I can tell you now budding accountants are certainly better off now than in 2010 | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"Im certainly better off now than I was in 2010 | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
I can tell you now budding accountants are certainly better off now than in 2010"interesting. In what way? And what's caused that change ? From an actuarial side it appears the same... (albeit observing from the outside. I haven't been budding for years!!) | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? " It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. " I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas." What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? | |||
"On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"" Unless a person is doing the exact same job and has not been promoted (or moved to a new firm) or has not expanded their business/client base if self employed or a business owner, then the answer will always be “yes I am better off”. I certainly am. Massively. But I don’t put that down to the govt in any way. | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
I can tell you now budding accountants are certainly better off now than in 2010interesting. In what way? And what's caused that change ?
From an actuarial side it appears the same... (albeit observing from the outside. I haven't been budding for years!!)"The starting wages for big 4 new grads have gone up considerably as well as working hour decreasing considerably. Practices began being monitored as many of the new grads would work 60 hour weeks for 14k. They still work long hours but bow monitoring takes place to stop it at 40 hours worked The big 4 also reduced their entry requirements knowing they needed more juniors instead of being able to abuse their working hours. At a one of the roles I previously worked at as an assistant accountant they would remark they couldn't beli3ve the salaries new grads would demand in 2018 vs when they graduated from big 4 in 2014. That was only 4 years and it's only increases since then. | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
I can tell you now budding accountants are certainly better off now than in 2010interesting. In what way? And what's caused that change ?
From an actuarial side it appears the same... (albeit observing from the outside. I haven't been budding for years!!)
The starting wages for big 4 new grads have gone up considerably as well as working hour decreasing considerably.
Practices began being monitored as many of the new grads would work 60 hour weeks for 14k. They still work long hours but bow monitoring takes place to stop it at 40 hours worked
The big 4 also reduced their entry requirements knowing they needed more juniors instead of being able to abuse their working hours.
At a one of the roles I previously worked at as an assistant accountant they would remark they couldn't beli3ve the salaries new grads would demand in 2018 vs when they graduated from big 4 in 2014. That was only 4 years and it's only increases since then.
"14k ? Is that a typo? | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?
I can tell you now budding accountants are certainly better off now than in 2010interesting. In what way? And what's caused that change ?
From an actuarial side it appears the same... (albeit observing from the outside. I haven't been budding for years!!)
The starting wages for big 4 new grads have gone up considerably as well as working hour decreasing considerably.
Practices began being monitored as many of the new grads would work 60 hour weeks for 14k. They still work long hours but bow monitoring takes place to stop it at 40 hours worked
The big 4 also reduced their entry requirements knowing they needed more juniors instead of being able to abuse their working hours.
At a one of the roles I previously worked at as an assistant accountant they would remark they couldn't beli3ve the salaries new grads would demand in 2018 vs when they graduated from big 4 in 2014. That was only 4 years and it's only increases since then.
"Always need bean counters  | |||
| |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"I would say I'm probably slightly worse off all things considered, looking at people I work with around 13 years younger...they are miles worse off than I was 13 years ago. | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. The e.u have laughed at starmer. It has no legs. It's 1-0 Dialing back the net zero speed commitments is listening to the public. Which is a good move from rishi as his core voter base was nit impressed. This was one of TM and BJ major problems." . ;,, to pick on one man (Starmer) , even though he is leader of HM Opposition , and say The E U were laughing at him is a bit strong , I do agree they probably were , but they (along with many other countries ) have been laughing at us since 2016 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030." So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind! Got you!!! Ok!! I hope that Ford and other manufacturers keep at the pace they were going to go… fords entire European new car base is supposed to be going EV by the end of next year… that means 8-9 new different EV models by 2025! The reason why Toyota are against it is because they were forward thinking with hybrids they are way behind in EVs, they are looking after their own self interest | |||
| |||
"This is an expedient political move by Sunak - and a political trap for Labour. Most people with non-electric cars will like this Tory position and if Labour opposes it they can kiss goodby to those old red now blue wall seats coming back to them - most people will be driving old bangers or about to buy an old banger. Add in more time for your gas boiler and what's not to like amongst the barely managing. Classic wedge issue. As for industry they'll just have to suck it up!" I think it's marginal. If you disagree with 30, you probably disagree with 35. Just slightly less so. And whether you see this as pragmatic, inevitable or retreat, will probably depend on your views of the Tories on general. | |||
"You know, when I was complaining of Starmers u-turns, I was met with 'isn't it better to realise now that those promises aren't viable, and change the target'. It would appear those same people think differently if its Tories moving goalposts
So true! His announcement isn’t supposed to change the target, still net zero by 2050.
Blame the tories
On the same note, 13 years in government, do people feel any better off?"Yes, I do feel better off since 13 years ago but I'm not crediting the government for that. At the same time though the government have not held me back either | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. The e.u have laughed at starmer. It has no legs. It's 1-0 Dialing back the net zero speed commitments is listening to the public. Which is a good move from rishi as his core voter base was nit impressed. This was one of TM and BJ major problems.. ;,, to pick on one man (Starmer) , even though he is leader of HM Opposition , and say The E U were laughing at him is a bit strong , I do agree they probably were , but they (along with many other countries ) have been laughing at us since 2016" Whybwoyld they be laughing at us? Have recent inflation, gdp, currency, wage results not financing putin shown we've championed free trade and come out winners. | |||
"YouGov poll... By 50% to 34%, Britons support the government's proposal to push back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035." Have you got more recent polling. I think you'll find that idealism quickly shifted when people realised they would foot the bill. | |||
"So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind" Behind in what? What does the winner of the race to net zero get? And what is the penalty for being last? | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030. So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind! Got you!!! Ok!! I hope that Ford and other manufacturers keep at the pace they were going to go… fords entire European new car base is supposed to be going EV by the end of next year… that means 8-9 new different EV models by 2025! The reason why Toyota are against it is because they were forward thinking with hybrids they are way behind in EVs, they are looking after their own self interest " A car manufacturer pushing ahead with an only EV range is not a problem is it? Or is it? | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030. So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind! Got you!!! Ok!! I hope that Ford and other manufacturers keep at the pace they were going to go… fords entire European new car base is supposed to be going EV by the end of next year… that means 8-9 new different EV models by 2025! The reason why Toyota are against it is because they were forward thinking with hybrids they are way behind in EVs, they are looking after their own self interest " What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? Please tell us how usa and china are leading the way. Because output of c02 for both countries is CONSIDERABLY higher than the uk. I am pretty sure there's a much larger percentage of gas guzzling suvs per person in the usa too. Honestly which measure are you using here. This will be a hoot. Or are you assuming Ford = USA? | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030. So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind! Got you!!! Ok!! I hope that Ford and other manufacturers keep at the pace they were going to go… fords entire European new car base is supposed to be going EV by the end of next year… that means 8-9 new different EV models by 2025! The reason why Toyota are against it is because they were forward thinking with hybrids they are way behind in EVs, they are looking after their own self interest A car manufacturer pushing ahead with an only EV range is not a problem is it? Or is it?" Ironically Toyotas stance is self interest yet fords isn't. Quote from the ceo of Ford. Ms Brankin said the range is supported by £430m of investment in Ford’s UK facilities, with further funding planned based on the 2030 target. She said it was “vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future”. Ford definitely don't have any interest in trying to get ahead of the market. That's what it's about. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants?" I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030. So because the US and the Chinese do have the foresight and the ambition.. you are advocating for the UK to fall even further behind! Got you!!! Ok!! I hope that Ford and other manufacturers keep at the pace they were going to go… fords entire European new car base is supposed to be going EV by the end of next year… that means 8-9 new different EV models by 2025! The reason why Toyota are against it is because they were forward thinking with hybrids they are way behind in EVs, they are looking after their own self interest What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? Please tell us how usa and china are leading the way. Because output of c02 for both countries is CONSIDERABLY higher than the uk. I am pretty sure there's a much larger percentage of gas guzzling suvs per person in the usa too. Honestly which measure are you using here. This will be a hoot. Or are you assuming Ford = USA?" I think Fabio is referring to our infrastructure bill and that we just discovered one of the largest lithium deposits here in the states. | |||
" What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? " I am only going to address this “_orleyman” claim once….. For those of you who don’t know, Morley is addressing something from another car and ev thread where I stated that for the first 2 quarters of the 2023 years that the highest selling new car in the US was the Tesla model Y… January to end June I even said that the Tesla model Y was the 4th largest selling new motor vehicle as the 3 ahead of it was were all pick up trucks… 3 was the dodge ram, 2 was the Chevy Silverado, and 1 was the Ford F-150 Morley playing his normal game of “back it up with figures” asked me for my sources… of which I produced them! Now I can produce updated figures for the person January to end July 2023…. Not quite end q3 as that would be end September For new motor vehicles… 1,2 and 3 were still the same 3 pick up trucks, Ford f-150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram 4 is now the Toyota rav4.. which is a crossover suv in the states and not the brick you see here, and 5 is now the Tesla model Y This would now make the Tesla the 2nd best selling new car in the US in 2023, I can give you more figures… the RAV4 sold 224,838 vehicles ( which happens to be a 5.8% decline so far from last year) the Tesla model Y has sold 221,847 ( which is a 95.4% increase from last year so far) So at the end of July… roughly 3000 difference I can give you the sources if anyone would like them… Now…. Address Morley…. I backed up what I said with sources… so as far as I am concerned what you did was a low personal attack…. If I get 48/72 hrs ban for this post… I will expect you to get the same! I don’t normally report people but I was sorely tempted to… you went after my integrity when you actually demanded sources and I give them to you… I would ask for an apology for the lies you put out there but I am not going to hold my breath that you have the decency to do so… in fact I am going to predict that you reply to the post will be to demand my sources For everyone else, I will happily cite everyone I have including the us sales report… for you I will say “google is your answer “ | |||
" What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? I am only going to address this “_orleyman” claim once….. For those of you who don’t know, Morley is addressing something from another car and ev thread where I stated that for the first 2 quarters of the 2023 years that the highest selling new car in the US was the Tesla model Y… January to end June I even said that the Tesla model Y was the 4th largest selling new motor vehicle as the 3 ahead of it was were all pick up trucks… 3 was the dodge ram, 2 was the Chevy Silverado, and 1 was the Ford F-150 Morley playing his normal game of “back it up with figures” asked me for my sources… of which I produced them! Now I can produce updated figures for the person January to end July 2023…. Not quite end q3 as that would be end September For new motor vehicles… 1,2 and 3 were still the same 3 pick up trucks, Ford f-150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram 4 is now the Toyota rav4.. which is a crossover suv in the states and not the brick you see here, and 5 is now the Tesla model Y This would now make the Tesla the 2nd best selling new car in the US in 2023, I can give you more figures… the RAV4 sold 224,838 vehicles ( which happens to be a 5.8% decline so far from last year) the Tesla model Y has sold 221,847 ( which is a 95.4% increase from last year so far) So at the end of July… roughly 3000 difference I can give you the sources if anyone would like them… Now…. Address Morley…. I backed up what I said with sources… so as far as I am concerned what you did was a low personal attack…. If I get 48/72 hrs ban for this post… I will expect you to get the same! I don’t normally report people but I was sorely tempted to… you went after my integrity when you actually demanded sources and I give them to you… I would ask for an apology for the lies you put out there but I am not going to hold my breath that you have the decency to do so… in fact I am going to predict that you reply to the post will be to demand my sources For everyone else, I will happily cite everyone I have including the us sales report… for you I will say “google is your answer “ " It's no good addressing it here. Link us the other thread so we can see for ourselves what the claim was. That's the only way we know who is telling the truth. | |||
" What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? I am only going to address this “_orleyman” claim once….. For those of you who don’t know, Morley is addressing something from another car and ev thread where I stated that for the first 2 quarters of the 2023 years that the highest selling new car in the US was the Tesla model Y… January to end June I even said that the Tesla model Y was the 4th largest selling new motor vehicle as the 3 ahead of it was were all pick up trucks… 3 was the dodge ram, 2 was the Chevy Silverado, and 1 was the Ford F-150 Morley playing his normal game of “back it up with figures” asked me for my sources… of which I produced them! Now I can produce updated figures for the person January to end July 2023…. Not quite end q3 as that would be end September For new motor vehicles… 1,2 and 3 were still the same 3 pick up trucks, Ford f-150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram 4 is now the Toyota rav4.. which is a crossover suv in the states and not the brick you see here, and 5 is now the Tesla model Y This would now make the Tesla the 2nd best selling new car in the US in 2023, I can give you more figures… the RAV4 sold 224,838 vehicles ( which happens to be a 5.8% decline so far from last year) the Tesla model Y has sold 221,847 ( which is a 95.4% increase from last year so far) So at the end of July… roughly 3000 difference I can give you the sources if anyone would like them… Now…. Address Morley…. I backed up what I said with sources… so as far as I am concerned what you did was a low personal attack…. If I get 48/72 hrs ban for this post… I will expect you to get the same! I don’t normally report people but I was sorely tempted to… you went after my integrity when you actually demanded sources and I give them to you… I would ask for an apology for the lies you put out there but I am not going to hold my breath that you have the decency to do so… in fact I am going to predict that you reply to the post will be to demand my sources For everyone else, I will happily cite everyone I have including the us sales report… for you I will say “google is your answer “ " I've only read the first 2 paragraphs and you've already told 2 lies | |||
| |||
| |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading" Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. | |||
" What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? I am only going to address this “_orleyman” claim once….. For those of you who don’t know, Morley is addressing something from another car and ev thread where I stated that for the first 2 quarters of the 2023 years that the highest selling new car in the US was the Tesla model Y… January to end June I even said that the Tesla model Y was the 4th largest selling new motor vehicle as the 3 ahead of it was were all pick up trucks… 3 was the dodge ram, 2 was the Chevy Silverado, and 1 was the Ford F-150 Morley playing his normal game of “back it up with figures” asked me for my sources… of which I produced them! Now I can produce updated figures for the person January to end July 2023…. Not quite end q3 as that would be end September For new motor vehicles… 1,2 and 3 were still the same 3 pick up trucks, Ford f-150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram 4 is now the Toyota rav4.. which is a crossover suv in the states and not the brick you see here, and 5 is now the Tesla model Y This would now make the Tesla the 2nd best selling new car in the US in 2023, I can give you more figures… the RAV4 sold 224,838 vehicles ( which happens to be a 5.8% decline so far from last year) the Tesla model Y has sold 221,847 ( which is a 95.4% increase from last year so far) So at the end of July… roughly 3000 difference I can give you the sources if anyone would like them… Now…. Address Morley…. I backed up what I said with sources… so as far as I am concerned what you did was a low personal attack…. If I get 48/72 hrs ban for this post… I will expect you to get the same! I don’t normally report people but I was sorely tempted to… you went after my integrity when you actually demanded sources and I give them to you… I would ask for an apology for the lies you put out there but I am not going to hold my breath that you have the decency to do so… in fact I am going to predict that you reply to the post will be to demand my sources For everyone else, I will happily cite everyone I have including the us sales report… for you I will say “google is your answer “ " S’alright. No matter what evidence you produce, Morley will call you a liar. | |||
" What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? I am only going to address this “_orleyman” claim once….. For those of you who don’t know, Morley is addressing something from another car and ev thread where I stated that for the first 2 quarters of the 2023 years that the highest selling new car in the US was the Tesla model Y… January to end June I even said that the Tesla model Y was the 4th largest selling new motor vehicle as the 3 ahead of it was were all pick up trucks… 3 was the dodge ram, 2 was the Chevy Silverado, and 1 was the Ford F-150 Morley playing his normal game of “back it up with figures” asked me for my sources… of which I produced them! Now I can produce updated figures for the person January to end July 2023…. Not quite end q3 as that would be end September For new motor vehicles… 1,2 and 3 were still the same 3 pick up trucks, Ford f-150, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram 4 is now the Toyota rav4.. which is a crossover suv in the states and not the brick you see here, and 5 is now the Tesla model Y This would now make the Tesla the 2nd best selling new car in the US in 2023, I can give you more figures… the RAV4 sold 224,838 vehicles ( which happens to be a 5.8% decline so far from last year) the Tesla model Y has sold 221,847 ( which is a 95.4% increase from last year so far) So at the end of July… roughly 3000 difference I can give you the sources if anyone would like them… Now…. Address Morley…. I backed up what I said with sources… so as far as I am concerned what you did was a low personal attack…. If I get 48/72 hrs ban for this post… I will expect you to get the same! I don’t normally report people but I was sorely tempted to… you went after my integrity when you actually demanded sources and I give them to you… I would ask for an apology for the lies you put out there but I am not going to hold my breath that you have the decency to do so… in fact I am going to predict that you reply to the post will be to demand my sources For everyone else, I will happily cite everyone I have including the us sales report… for you I will say “google is your answer “ S’alright. No matter what evidence you produce, Morley will call you a liar. " Ironically you replied to the point _abio made in the that thread. Maybe you can help _abio find it? As you linked to global sales not sales in the usa. When you thought you were helping him. | |||
"YouGov poll... By 50% to 34%, Britons support the government's proposal to push back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. Have you got more recent polling. I think you'll find that idealism quickly shifted when people realised they would foot the bill. " Erm 50% in favour of pushing back the ban (ie support Sunak). Assumed this was recent and was perhaps the encouragement Sunak needed for his policy change. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. " I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding "There isn't a person here who thinks science isn't real. I'd actually hazard a guess that there isn't a person in the world who thinks science isn't real. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding
There isn't a person here who thinks science isn't real.
I'd actually hazard a guess that there isn't a person in the world who thinks science isn't real. "Going to politely disagree  and just say...”flat earthers” | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding
There isn't a person here who thinks science isn't real.
I'd actually hazard a guess that there isn't a person in the world who thinks science isn't real.
Going to politely disagree and just say...”flat earthers”"I hear you but do those people not believe in science or do they question particular science. I think there's a difference. | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding
There isn't a person here who thinks science isn't real.
I'd actually hazard a guess that there isn't a person in the world who thinks science isn't real.
Going to politely disagree and just say...”flat earthers”
I hear you but do those people not believe in science or do they question particular science. I think there's a difference. "Hmmm ok see what you mean. Although is there ANY science that supports the theory the Earth is flat? | |||
"Automotive giant Ford issue extraordinary statement slamming Sunak’s net zero retreat: “Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency.” Yup they'll be mad. Ford has been pushing net zero and rechargeable for a long time as it was an early mover in the industry. It felt it could get a hump on Toyota and others in market share. Toyota were furious at the initial timeline and threatened to pull out the uk in terms of manufacturing. All that matter is the publics purse and the public purse has spoken. We don't want this ban in 2030.who is we? People who think science isn't real, and who think immigrants cause all their problems. Do you think 2030 was a well thought out target or an arbitrary target? It's the Tories, so I assume it was done with minimal effort with reassurances to their oil company donor's that their profits aren't in danger. I’m not sure why you would think those who question the target and rationale would not believe in science and immigrants are creating all their problems. Your type of language was slammed after Starmer used the same type of attack to prevent opposition to his ideas. What's my type of language got to do with something Starmer? Are you suggesting I am trying to prevent ideas such as science isn't real, and that we should all focus on immigrants? I’m saying you are using the same tactic as Starmer and Braverman in weaponising your words and alienating anyone who does not think like you with the words you use. What I find strange is you were extremely vocal when Braverman used invading Huh? I think you're over reaching there. I'm just poking fun at people who think science isn't real (seemingly the same people who swallow the anti-immigrant propaganda as someone else pointed out). It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. These people disagree with reality. I didn’t read your replies as poking fun, quite the opposite. Now you’ve said that, I can see it and understand how you were responding
There isn't a person here who thinks science isn't real.
I'd actually hazard a guess that there isn't a person in the world who thinks science isn't real.
Going to politely disagree and just say...”flat earthers”
I hear you but do those people not believe in science or do they question particular science. I think there's a difference.
Hmmm ok see what you mean. Although is there ANY science that supports the theory the Earth is flat?"I highly doubt it. Johnny often says he takes the piss out of people who think science isn't real. I'm not sure who he's taking the piss out of because I don't believe those people exist. | |||
"YouGov poll... By 50% to 34%, Britons support the government's proposal to push back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. Have you got more recent polling. I think you'll find that idealism quickly shifted when people realised they would foot the bill. Erm 50% in favour of pushing back the ban (ie support Sunak). Assumed this was recent and was perhaps the encouragement Sunak needed for his policy change." My apologies I misread. | |||
"YouGov poll... By 50% to 34%, Britons support the government's proposal to push back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. Have you got more recent polling. I think you'll find that idealism quickly shifted when people realised they would foot the bill. Erm 50% in favour of pushing back the ban (ie support Sunak). Assumed this was recent and was perhaps the encouragement Sunak needed for his policy change. My apologies I misread. " No worries. Copying over my post from the bankrupting thread as would be interested to hear your views... For me there is a need to balance pragmatism with ambition. The infrastructure has to be in place for full EV ownership. The technology needs to be more efficient and cheaper AND not have other undesirable consequences on the environment (mining of raw materials, recycling components). The price has to come down massively. Without that you simply will not change consumer behaviour. No matter how worthy the cause, most human beings are short term in focus and will prioritise their own current needs over a future (unborn) generation. I have said this before and still do not really understand why we do not take this approach... Through history major crises have been funded by the govt through long term borrowing. As a tax payer I (we) have only recently finished paying off the govt debt for sl@ve owner compensation, WWI and WWII. The climate change issue is another crisis. Why should the financial burden be only placed on the current generation when it is actually future generations who will benefit from the actions taken? It is, arguably, the actions of the inter-war generation and boomers that caused this issue but they won’t be here to pay their dues. It falls on Gen X/Z and Millennials but I would argue should be spread over next two centuries reducing impact now! | |||
| |||
"YouGov poll... By 50% to 34%, Britons support the government's proposal to push back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. Have you got more recent polling. I think you'll find that idealism quickly shifted when people realised they would foot the bill. Erm 50% in favour of pushing back the ban (ie support Sunak). Assumed this was recent and was perhaps the encouragement Sunak needed for his policy change. My apologies I misread. No worries. Copying over my post from the bankrupting thread as would be interested to hear your views... For me there is a need to balance pragmatism with ambition. The infrastructure has to be in place for full EV ownership. The technology needs to be more efficient and cheaper AND not have other undesirable consequences on the environment (mining of raw materials, recycling components). The price has to come down massively. Without that you simply will not change consumer behaviour. No matter how worthy the cause, most human beings are short term in focus and will prioritise their own current needs over a future (unborn) generation. I have said this before and still do not really understand why we do not take this approach... Through history major crises have been funded by the govt through long term borrowing. As a tax payer I (we) have only recently finished paying off the govt debt for sl@ve owner compensation, WWI and WWII. The climate change issue is another crisis. Why should the financial burden be only placed on the current generation when it is actually future generations who will benefit from the actions taken? It is, arguably, the actions of the inter-war generation and boomers that caused this issue but they won’t be here to pay their dues. It falls on Gen X/Z and Millennials but I would argue should be spread over next two centuries reducing impact now!" Intergenerational equity is important. But we can afford it by investment now and shifting tax burdens….increasing the tax take from unearned income, corporate profits, offshoring and evasion. Costs shouldn’t fall on the lower/mid incomes, and there’s no reason why it should…apart from politics. It’s not just the 2050 net zero target, it’s international legally binding agreements we have in place on the road to NZ. | |||
| |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week." Really ! The polls suggest otherwise If you claim 1-0 , does that make overall score Labour 87- conservatives 1 ? | |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week. Really ! The polls suggest otherwise If you claim 1-0 , does that make overall score Labour 87- conservatives 1 ?" I truly believe Labour will win next year but brush of the Tories because 'the polls' suggest otherwise at your peril. | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc." I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ? | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ?" lol wow first time I have seen a UK person defend a 4x4 bravo!!! | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ? lol wow first time I have seen a UK person defend a 4x4 bravo!!! " Why not have a Rav 4 4x4 Hybrid, and a Range Rover Sport the Range is so nice in the wet and cold will put it on to wintes when the clocks change | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ? lol wow first time I have seen a UK person defend a 4x4 bravo!!! Why not have a Rav 4 4x4 Hybrid, and a Range Rover Sport the Range is so nice in the wet and cold will put it on to wintes when the clocks change " We have lifted jeeps. We get blizzards. Feet of snow for days. I see your point. | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ? lol wow first time I have seen a UK person defend a 4x4 bravo!!! Why not have a Rav 4 4x4 Hybrid, and a Range Rover Sport the Range is so nice in the wet and cold will put it on to wintes when the clocks change We have lifted jeeps. We get blizzards. Feet of snow for days. I see your point. " I don't see any big vans up to lorrys going carbon zero any time soon and even garden tools a plant will stay oil based. Don't see a 100 tone crain working on electric, or a 36 tone 360. | |||
"I'm seeing it as 1-1 although. However what we are seeing is Tories more likely to rally around and labour more likely to criticise in public. Starmers panning from inside was more about his language (rightfully so imo) and shutting down debate with unbritish. His proposal may have legs. I'm not sure how legal it is... but at least seems to have precendnce with the EU/turkey scheme. Sunak is dialing down promises. I never believed the dates, but always thought we need to aim for the stars, and be happy when we land on the moon. This was, imo, inevitable policy as part of that, and actually sensible. We are probably further along than if we had started with 35. Tbh, I don't see the green issue being one that sways the marginal voter either way. The crossings I do. And starmer has put something out there which may feel more credible than shipping them elsewhere. It does depend on how ppl engage with it tho. And why ppl want the crossings to stop. The e.u have laughed at starmer. It has no legs. It's 1-0 Dialing back the net zero speed commitments is listening to the public. Which is a good move from rishi as his core voter base was nit impressed. This was one of TM and BJ major problems.. ;,, to pick on one man (Starmer) , even though he is leader of HM Opposition , and say The E U were laughing at him is a bit strong , I do agree they probably were , but they (along with many other countries ) have been laughing at us since 2016 Whybwoyld they be laughing at us? Have recent inflation, gdp, currency, wage results not financing putin shown we've championed free trade and come out winners." . ;, maybe if you look at our Prime Ministers since 2016 , Cameron calls a 2 choice referendum with no plan for choice "B" (leave) , resigns the morning after , May says "Brexit means brexit" but can't convince her own MPs what Brexit means , so calls a GE , loses her majority but finds the magic money tree (which was unavailable to nurses) , to pay The DUP who voted for Brexit and want Brexit but don't want her Brexit ,May resigns , Johnson illegaly shuts down Parliament and lies to The Queen . Then wins a 80seat majority with 44% of the vote claiming he had an oven ready deal and telling Irish businesses to throw away any paperwork as he will not put a border down The Irish Sea , then he puts a border down The Irish Sea , he goes to be replaced by Truss (oh dear ) , she is replaced by the unelected Sunak who doesn't like the border down The Irish Sea which he supported as Chancellor ,,,,,, so if you are wondering why they are laughing at us for leaving a trading block on our door step , I think my response would be that I would by laughing , or at least giggling at any other country that had done that . Just a shame it was The UK | |||
"The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Banning ic based technology before the replacement (and infrastructure) is viable is not good for anyone. Electric cars take large amounts of scarce resources for their batteries. They are heavy, and therefore wear road and tyres more than ic equivalents. The environmental case for them depends on the useage. It would be much better to have a sensible mix of technology. Reducing speed limits to 60mph on motorways and dual carriageways, 50mph on single carriageways, 40 mph on single track roads would save significant amounts of fuel without affecting journey times much. Similarly, around here many roads are 30mph but there are short sections of 40mph for no good reason. These make mopeds and quadricycles dangerous. Banning SUVs would also be a good move. People must be stupid to volunteer to buy something that costs more, uses more fuel, handles worse on road and looks like something it is not (4x4). Our car seats 5 and has a reasonably sized boot. It is considered a supermini now, when I grew up it would have been considered a large car. The roads are not bigger and are more congested than when I grew up so why do people insist on buying ever bigger cars? Maybe allowing/ encouraging more mopeds and quadricycles (as in France) would be good. It would reduce congestion and emissions. The housing stock is not ideal for replacing gas boilers with heat pumps due to poor insulation. Concentrate on that first to reduce emissions. Etc. I like my big 4x4 and it's more economic than the van I use for work. So can you explain the logic behind the SUV part. Come winter it if there is snow the only way out of the lane is the 4x4 it's OK for city foke but its not a 1 fits all in the UK. We have just paid for an up grade to the electricity supply. But the max we can have is 100amp or 23kw. So we could not charge cars and a heat pump with everything else I the property. We still have solid fule as gas supply is limited ? lol wow first time I have seen a UK person defend a 4x4 bravo!!! Why not have a Rav 4 4x4 Hybrid, and a Range Rover Sport the Range is so nice in the wet and cold will put it on to wintes when the clocks change We have lifted jeeps. We get blizzards. Feet of snow for days. I see your point. I don't see any big vans up to lorrys going carbon zero any time soon and even garden tools a plant will stay oil based. Don't see a 100 tone crain working on electric, or a 36 tone 360. " You're missing the "net" part of the target. | |||
"Sunak and tories only have a year left so he can say what he likes. That's sort of the point. Both sides can day what they like. It's 1 year left until the election. Manifestos eed to be drawn up It's 1-0 rishi this week. Really ! The polls suggest otherwise If you claim 1-0 , does that make overall score Labour 87- conservatives 1 ?" No | |||
