Posted without irony, you’re just proving his point.
Jamie Crawley
3,040 posts
Jamie Crawley
@JamieCrawleyCD
- You’ve done no such thing.
- Replying to @alphamike20 and @afneilIt doesn't. Sea level rising at 30-odd centimetres per century isn't a disaster.
- Replying to @MiatsfThe gov thinks its better to have permanently expensive energy from RE rather than risk having temporarily expensive energy from gas. Like thinking its better to be permanently homeless than risk being evicted. Gas is not expensive. Can someone tell her its not 2022 anymore?
- Replying to @BenGoldsmith and @afneilSo you'd buy a mix of crap cars on the basis that hopefully one of them works when you need to go somewhere? Or presumably, like most normal people, you buy one car that you know will work all the time?
- Replying to @AWishfulDJ @JC47053522 and @latimeralderRenewable energy is expensive and unreliable. The answer to expensive, unreliable technology is not to try and use another expensive technology to make it slightly less unreliable. The answer is don’t use it in the first place.
- Yes I am a Conservative. I believe in low tax, a small state, individualism & free enterprise. Net zero will help us build a more prosperous and resilient economy in the long term. It is a Conservative mission.
- Replying to @JamesHall795 @policy_uk and @hmtreasuryThe point is that national wealth funds are generally funded by budget surpluses (which we don’t have). If it’s funded by borrowing or taxation, it’s not a national wealth fund. It’s just government expenditure.
- Replying to @BellaWallersteiThis makes net zero sense. Net zero relies on the government deciding what consumers use and what they do by banning the alternatives. That could not be further from small state, individualism or free enterprise.
- Replying to @dave43law and @PatrickChristysWe're not suffering. Signed, the 87%.
- Replying to @bbcquestiontimeThere is no economic opportunity in making energy more expensive. Repeat: There is NO economic opportunity in making energy MORE expensive.
- Replying to @PaulMaxin and @IainDaleIf you understood how that analysis worked, you wouldn’t be citing it to prove your point It creates an imaginary UK that never left the EU, decides how much the economy of that would’ve grown, then determines that the real life UK is £100B pa worse off TL/DR: it’s bullshit
- Replying to @Kit_Yates_Maths and @bmj_latestIs this the same BMA that called ending all restrictions in July a “dangerous and unethical experiment”? Suggests their track record isn’t that great.
