Rishi Sunak considers weakening key green policies

[Social Media]

Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government's key green commitments in a major policy shift.

It could include delaying a ban on the sales of new petrol and diesel cars and phasing out gas boilers, multiple sources have told the BBC.

The PM is preparing to set out the changes in a speech in the coming days.

Responding to the reported plans, he said the government was committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 but in a "more proportionate way".

The aim of net zero is for the UK to take out of the atmosphere as many greenhouse gas emissions - such as carbon dioxide - as it puts in.

The prime minister said: "For too many years politicians in governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs. Instead they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.

 

"This realism doesn't mean losing our ambition or abandoning our commitments. Far from it.

"I am proud that Britain is leading the world on climate change."

He said the UK was committed to international climate agreements it had already made.

"No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change," he said.

 

FULL STORY

[Chomper Higgot]

Another U-Turn.

 

…

"No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change," he said.

 

Obviously not referring to the UK’s sewage filled rivers and the Government’s failure to enforce environmental laws on water companies.

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

Good move by Sunak.

 

Nobody voted to be poorer.

 

The obsession with net zero is just making people's lives miserable. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Good move by Sunak.

 

Nobody voted to be poorer.

 

The obsession with net zero is just making people's lives miserable. 

Nobody voted for Sunak to be PM.

 

Insulation, heat pumps and more efficient gas boilers are cutting people’s energy bills.

[JonnyF]

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody voted for Sunak to be PM.

They voted for the Conservative party Chomhpherh. We don't vote for "the president" in Britain. You're not in Kansas anymore.

 

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Insulation, heat pumps and more efficient gas boilers are cutting people’s energy bills.

Heat pumps are extremely ineffecient at very low temperates typical of a British winter. Plus they cost thousands to install.

 

Same as EV's reduce petrol bills. As long as you have 20 grand to buy one. OK for you sat in your ivory tower preaching about the cult of climate alarmism, many people don't have that kind of money to waste on the folly of net zero. 

 

Good job Rishi. 

[JayClay]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

They voted for the Conservative party Chomhpherh

More precisely, they voted for the content of the Conservative party manifesto, which contained a commitment to net zero.

 

If he wants to change that manifesto he is required to hold a general election and get a new mandate.

 

In the interest of balance, however, I can't tell from the content of the OP whether Sunak is talking about cutting commitments now, or as part of his election campaign.

[JonnyF]

33 minutes ago, JayClay said:

More precisely, they voted for the content of the Conservative party manifesto, which contained a commitment to net zero.

 

If he wants to change that manifesto he is required to hold a general election and get a new mandate.

 

In the interest of balance, however, I can't tell from the content of the OP whether Sunak is talking about cutting commitments now, or as part of his election campaign.

This will form part of his next manifesto. At least I hope it does, because it will be very popular with the electorate who are sick of the green agenda and being forced to accept a lower standard of living at a higher cost to appease the doomsday cult of climate alarmism.

[JayClay]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This will form part of his next manifesto. At least I hope it does, because it will be very popular with the electorate who are sick of the green agenda and being forced to accept a lower standard of living at a higher cost to appease the doomsday cult of climate alarmism.

I was wondering which of the 3 categories of remaining Tory supporters you belonged to. Now I know: the deluded.

 

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, JayClay said:

I was wondering which of the 3 categories of remaining Tory supporters you belonged to. Now I know: the deluded.

 

 

Wait until they see how much it's going to cost them. You think Sunak is rolling back on this because he thinks it's a vote loser?

 

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-support-majority-net-zero-policies-unless-there-is-a-personal-cost

 

 

PS I don't vote Tory, but nice Strawman. Bravo.

[JayClay]

First: You're adding in conditionals - there is no personal cost to net zero when done correctly so that is irrelevant.

 

Secondly I suggested you were a tory supporter and not a tory voter. So don't try and pull that one. And, before you try and make another ridiculous attempt at a clever response, I mean supporter of their policies, not any kind of financial supporter.

[JonnyF]

37 minutes ago, JayClay said:

First: You're adding in conditionals - there is no personal cost to net zero when done correctly so that is irrelevant.

Nonsense. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/13/reaching-net-zero-would-cost-taxpayers-twice-much-no-10s-estimates/

 

 

37 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

Secondly I suggested you were a tory supporter and not a tory voter. So don't try and pull that one. And, before you try and make another ridiculous attempt at a clever response, I mean supporter of their policies, not any kind of financial supporter.

Support? How does one support a policy without voting for them? Are you implying I stand outside Number 10 Waving a Tory scarf and chanting "There's only one Rishi Sunak"? 

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, JayClay said:

First: You're adding in conditionals - there is no personal cost to net zero when done correctly so that is irrelevant.

 

Having to scrap my ICE car and install a heat pump in my house before I can sell looks like a personal cost to me.

Around 20,000 pounds in personal cost!

Then (in the UK) there's the electric bill x2 to subsidise all the windmills and solar farms.

Then (in the UK) there's the x4 electric cost (Vs gas cost) because my gas powered heating is no longer allowed.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

This will form part of his next manifesto. At least I hope it does, because it will be very popular with the electorate who are sick of the green agenda and being forced to accept a lower standard of living at a higher cost to appease the doomsday cult of climate alarmism.

Sunak actually managing to pick an issue tge electorate are concerned over would be a turn for the better.

 

As it is he sticks to u-turns, dither, delay and inaction.

 

 

The electorate have noticed.

 

 

[DonniePeverley]

We all want cleaner air. However, leaders must be honest about costs.

 

If you ask people they want cleaner air they of course will say yes. If you tell them they will have to scrap some of their cars, buy newer electric cars - some might say no. If you then go on to tell them that they will then have to pay to drive in certain areas (Ulez, green zones, neighbourhood zones) alot will be annoyed. If you then tell them they will have to get rid of their boilers and then install heat pumps at a cost of thousands most will be pretty annoyed. 

 

If you then tell them they will have further curbs on their lives - eg flying and taking holidays. 

 

Eventually when you lay it all out - that 100% that originally said yes, will now be down to low single figures. 

 

Personally having been in Thailand, and inhaling the disgusting traffic fumes we have here in Bangkok, i do welcome some measures here in Bangkok. It's absolutely horrific. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by DonniePeverley

[DonniePeverley]

3 hours ago, JayClay said:

First: You're adding in conditionals - there is no personal cost to net zero when done correctly so that is irrelevant.

 

 

Green taxes? Subsidies to pay for the heating pumps that will come from taxes. The infringment coming on flights, etc 

 

I'm bemused how you say their is no 'cost' when done correctly. Can you enlighten me further how their is no costs. 

[JonnyF]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sunak actually managing to pick an issue tge electorate are concerned over would be a turn for the better.

 

As it is he sticks to u-turns, dither, delay and inaction.

 

 

The electorate have noticed.

 

 

Luckily his opponent is Starmer, who recently u-turned and admitted that a woman is an adult human female. 

 

But depite Stamer's recent epiphany, there's plenty of time for him to grab defeat from the jaws of victory on other issues. Labour always do. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Luckily his opponent is Starmer, who recently u-turned and admitted that a woman is an adult human female. 

 

But depite Stamer's recent epiphany, there's plenty of time for him to grab defeat from the jaws of victory on other issues. Labour always do. 

I look forward to the election.

[JayClay]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Support? How does one support a policy without voting for them? Are you implying I stand outside Number 10 Waving a Tory scarf and chanting "There's only one Rishi Sunak"? 

No, not outside of no10. You do it here.

 

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Having to scrap my ICE car and install a heat pump in my house before I can sell looks like a personal cost to me.

Around 20,000 pounds in personal cost!

Then (in the UK) there's the electric bill x2 to subsidise all the windmills and solar farms.

Then (in the UK) there's the x4 electric cost (Vs gas cost) because my gas powered heating is no longer allowed.

I didn't say that there is currently no costs involved. I said if it's done correctly there need be no cost involved. Of course the current muppets in charge aren't doing it correctly!

 

37 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

Green taxes? Subsidies to pay for the heating pumps that will come from taxes. The infringment coming on flights, etc 

 

I'm bemused how you say their is no 'cost' when done correctly. Can you enlighten me further how their is no costs. 

Do you seriously think there's not enough money floating around in the UK to pay for this? Once there is a competent government in charge who won't be shy of, for example, levying windfall taxes on oil firms who are currently doing their ScroogeMcDuck impressions, swimming in thier ill gotten gains made from war profiteering, or making companies like Amazon and Starbucks actually pay their fair share, the treasury will be in a far better position to cover the costs.

[JayClay]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

, there's plenty of time for him to grab defeat from the jaws of victory on other issues. Labour always do. 

Is that the only route you see to the Tories retaining their seats? Relying on Labour to trip up, rather than expecting the Conservatives to actually do something useful?

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Is that the only route you see to the Tories retaining their seats? Relying on Labour to trip up, rather than expecting the Conservatives to actually do something useful?

Yes. The Tories have been pretty useless for the last couple of years. Any competent party would destroy them.

 

Labour won't.

[JayClay]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Yes. The Tories have been pretty useless for the last couple of years. Any competent party would destroy them.

 

Labour won't.

They've been pretty useless for the last 13 years. For the last two they've been a trainwreck.

 

If they keep on going the way they are, Labour will not only destroy them, there's even a (albeit I will admit very small) chance they won't even make the position of official opposition.

 

Labour are telling the voters what they want to hear, all the while the Tories are trying to tell voters what they should be caring about. Culture wars don't work when you're in power; saying "look how shot everything is and it's all the fault of [xyz]" just doesn't work when you've had 13 years to deal with whatever green-eyed-monster you're trying to demonize.

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, JayClay said:

They've been pretty useless for the last 13 years. For the last two they've been a trainwreck.

 

If they keep on going the way they are, Labour will not only destroy them, there's even a (albeit I will admit very small) chance they won't even make the position of official opposition.

 

Labour are telling the voters what they want to hear, all the while the Tories are trying to tell voters what they should be caring about. Culture wars don't work when you're in power; saying "look how shot everything is and it's all the fault of [xyz]" just doesn't work when you've had 13 years to deal with whatever green-eyed-monster you're trying to demonize.

I think you over-estimate Labour.

[DonniePeverley]

34 minutes ago, JayClay said:

No, not outside of no10. You do it here.

 

 

I didn't say that there is currently no costs involved. I said if it's done correctly there need be no cost involved. Of course the current muppets in charge aren't doing it correctly!

 

Do you seriously think there's not enough money floating around in the UK to pay for this? Once there is a competent government in charge who won't be shy of, for example, levying windfall taxes on oil firms who are currently doing their ScroogeMcDuck impressions, swimming in thier ill gotten gains made from war profiteering, or making companies like Amazon and Starbucks actually pay their fair share, the treasury will be in a far better position to cover the costs.

 

If they do pay for it - then there will be cuts to other departments. Which department do you want cutting? Health? Education? 

 

Or do you want tax rises? 

 

You still haven't explained to me how this will not cost the taxpayer anything if done correctly. Can you just enlighten us on this one. 

 

I get my gas / electricity bill once a month - and the bottom there is a pretty large 'green levy tax' that has been added. 

 

Moving aside from payments - what about the ensuing limitations this will eventually lead on our lives? My parents already having to pay Ulez charge just drive their car to a supermarket - ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE WITH ULEZ in principle in scapping older polluting cars (see the horrid polluting old busses here in Bangkok), but you know those cameras aren't going to go away. You will eventually be charged to pay to drive, etc 

 

Then as most of us are living and associated here with Thailand - how do you feel on the proposed curbs they will put on our travelling or increasing taxes heavily on flights?

 

It's a slipper slope that we aren't being told about. 

 

However, on the principle of cleaner air i am fall for it, and willing to make sacrifices myself - even pay extra tax. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

If they do pay for it - then there will be cuts to other departments. Which department do you want cutting? Health? Education? 

 

Or do you want tax rises? 

 

You still haven't explained to me how this will not cost the taxpayer anything if done correctly. Can you just enlighten us on this one. 

 

I get my gas / electricity bill once a month - and the bottom there is a pretty large 'green levy tax' that has been added. 

 

Moving aside from payments - what about the ensuing limitations this will eventually lead on our lives? My parents already having to pay Ulez charge just drive their car to a supermarket - ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE WITH ULEZ in principle in scapping older polluting cars (see the horrid polluting old busses here in Bangkok), but you know those cameras aren't going to go away. You will eventually be charged to pay to drive, etc 

 

Then as most of us are living and associated here with Thailand - how do you feel on the proposed curbs they will put on our travelling or increasing taxes heavily on flights?

 

It's a slipper slope that we aren't being told about. 

 

However, on the principle of cleaner air i am fall for it, and willing to make sacrifices myself - even pay extra tax. 

Which of the policies Sunak says he is going to U-Turn on are paid for by Government?

 

Money spent on new technologies is money circulated in the economy on which taxes are paid.

 

Perhaps Sunak wishes to let energy companies off the hook for their share of the costs.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I think you over-estimate Labour.

Labour typically runs through a series of bad leaders until they find one who can effectively communicate. It seems they have found one now.

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sunak actually managing to pick an issue tge electorate are concerned over would be a turn for the better.

 

As it is he sticks to u-turns, dither, delay and inaction.

 

 

The electorate have noticed.

 

 

The electorate notice uturns on policy and proposed policy by all parties.

 

You seem to only notice those from a particular party and then seem to think the electorate also do.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The electorate notice uturns on policy and proposed policy by all parties.

 

You seem to only notice those from a particular party and then seem to think the electorate also do.

Erm, there’s only one party in power.

 

 

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

If they do pay for it - then there will be cuts to other departments. Which department do you want cutting? Health? Education? 

I'd cut the defence budget to nothing. They no longer have any purpose.

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm, there’s only one party in power.

 

 

Erm, I said policies and proposed policies. 

 

Erm, a party does not need to be in power to have proposed policies. 

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Erm, I said policies and proposed policies. 

 

Erm, a party does not need to be in power to have proposed policies. 

But here’s a thing.

 

Starmer modified his policy ideas following Truss’ vandalism of the national economy, clearly stating policies must be fully funded.

 

Sunak is thrashing around trying to come up with something, anything at all, that will reverse his party’s abysmal polling data.

 

And here’s another thing.

 

Who does Sunak think he’s going to attract to vote Tory with this latest U-Turn?

 

The anti environment vote is already firmly in the Tory bag, he can only alienate voters who are concerned about the environment and galvanize opposition to Tory anti-environment policies.