Comrades, there is nothing to fear about the state controlling your internet access!
Indeed, the online environment will be immeasurably improved once undesirables are prevented from polluting it with their deviant presence, leaving the proletariat to peacefully contemplate the miracle of socialism.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale. .
I think instead of getting nostalgic about old railway lines, some of which now have roads and housing estates on them and couldn't be re-opened, I'd be asking why the current provision of rail services is so poor. Why have the Conservatives (who have been in Government for nine years) done so little to improve the railways?
Network Rail continues to struggle and capacity issues remain in most larger towns and cities. For many people, the daily commute is a grotesque, unpleasant experience. My response to this half-baked announcement wouldn't be nostalgia but anger.
Sometimes listening to the Conservative supporters on here trot out the latest half-baked nonsense from CCHQ, I wonder why they aren't defending the Party's record in Government since 2010 - you'd almost think they had been in Opposition and were just coming into Government.
There's a desperate desire to convince people the Conservative Party hasn't run out of ideas (which it clearly has) and isn't just about Brexit (which is all that holds their new voting coalition together).
I need convincing they haven't run out of good ideas that's why I'm so pleased about the latest rail announcement. It doesn't need to be half-baked, if they run with this policy and expand it then it will be beneficial to plenty of left behind parts of the UK.
"Latest voting intention for those who voted Labour in 2017:
Labour 65% Lib Dem 14% Conservative 9% Green 5%#Brexit Party 4%
YouGov/Sky/The Times 11-12 Nov#GE2019"
If this proves to be correct the LDs will not do as well as many think.
Do we have the Con figures?
And was the Brexit Party prompted, not prompted or only prompted where they are standing. The answer to that could make a big difference to the geographic spread of BXP ex Labour votes.
Why not subsidise gas, water and electricity bills up to a certain level dependent on family size instead? They are true essentials I would have thought. Having free broadband in Libraries is good enough I’d say. Or they could use one of the empty shops In the high street as a free broadband centre.
Perhaps you do not realise that the internet has become a vital part of the infrastructure for many countries. It really does deserve to be classed as an essential utility - not for Netflix and Youtube - but because many businesses run services over the internet that, in years gone by, were either incredibly expensive or of notable worse quality.
I remember working with one High St retailer where every shop had one IDSN line installed just to get stock updates from the main warehouse. Each update took several minutes and we had to run an overnight, multithreaded process because 1,000 stores needing 15 minutes each was 15,000 minutes to be squeezed in to an overnight job.
The bills for the line rental alone were eye-watering.....
Blimey! I thought the idea was to help out poor people, not subsidise corporate business
Those corporate businesses provide services to ALL of us using the network infrastructure. The point (in simple words for political wonks who like to miss the point) is that broadband provision has become a VITAL resource for the country. Without it, businesses would collapse and the economy stop.
Govts should not be fiddling with it for ideological reasons.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
Opening railway lines increases choice and provision. Nationalising Broadband destroys choice and provision. It is a very easy message to sell - do you want the Government controlling your internet access just like in China?
Within the bounds of encryption technology GCHQ have access to everything anyway. Corbyn's Volksdemocratischbreitband won't make any difference in that respect. The advantage will be you won't have to sift through 30 different providers and still feel like you're getting fucked no matter which one you choose.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
Opening railway lines increases choice and provision. Nationalising Broadband destroys choice and provision. It is a very easy message to sell - do you want the Government controlling your internet access just like in China?
Within the bounds of encryption technology GCHQ have access to everything anyway. Corbyn's Volksdemocratischbreitband won't make any difference in that respect. The advantage will be you won't have to sift through 30 different providers and still feel like you're getting fucked no matter which one you choose.
I need convincing they haven't run out of good ideas that's why I'm so pleased about the latest rail announcement. It doesn't need to be half-baked, if they run with this policy and expand it then it will be beneficial to plenty of left behind parts of the UK.
I need convincing this isn't some election stunt but is a serious policy. As you admit, £50 million doesn't touch the sides and set that against the delay and cost overrun of Crossrail from the original forecasts (which now seem worthy of entry for the Booker Prize in the fiction category) and it puts the issue of infrastructure transport projects into focus - what about the various electrification projects such as on the West Coast mainline or on the routes to Devon and Cornwall?
Improving current links and improving current provision to reduce peak time capacity issues (such as the scandal of the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which could provide additional capacity but which have been left for years) would for me be the outline of a coherent transport policy not this nostalgic nonsense.
During the Labour leadership campaign, Corbyn received heavy support from Scottish Labour. Not many Blairites north of the border after the Jim Murphy rout!
That Corbyn support has evaporated like snow off a dyke in April. They are all incandescent with rage at how he has handled the key IndyRef2 issue, and less-importantly Brexit. Not only has he been far too sympathetic to both, but he has flip-flopped badly. If a leader is going to make an unpopular decision, they must make it and then stick to their guns, not change the story every time they talk to a journalist.
This wouldn’t matter so much if Richard Leonard was remotely competent. He isn’t.
SLab are not in a happy place, and voters sense that.
Hard to believe it but Leonard seems to be the worst SLAB leader yet, given the competition that is some achievement.
Ah, I remember the good ol' days when the SNP were fearful about going too hard on Wendy Alexander, because if she was removed and replaced by somebody competent they might have a problem...
Wendy was a superstar compared with the grim successors.
Brown was furious, but her infamous “Bring It On” was very astute: she could have crippled the SNP for... oh... I dunno... a generation.
"Bring it on" was the start of SLab's troubles.
Brown's fury started the domino effect of rapid fire leader replacements in Scotland.
As you say it was exactly the right call. A early IndyRef would have crushed the SNP.
I well remember how relieved I was when Gordon sat there in the gallery, in a deep huff, several metres from an isolated, sad Wendy. We knew then that she, and her fantastic plan, were finish.
They would have thumped the independence side back then. Instead, Gordon threw fuel on the fire. Just as The Clown is doing now by blocking a fresh vote.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale. .
I think instead of getting nostalgic about old railway lines, some of which now have roads and housing estates on them and couldn't be re-opened, I'd be asking why the current provision of rail services is so poor. Why have the Conservatives (who have been in Government for nine years) done so little to improve the railways?
Network Rail continues to struggle and capacity issues remain in most larger towns and cities. For many people, the daily commute is a grotesque, unpleasant experience. My response to this half-baked announcement wouldn't be nostalgia but anger.
Sometimes listening to the Conservative supporters on here trot out the latest half-baked nonsense from CCHQ, I wonder why they aren't defending the Party's record in Government since 2010 - you'd almost think they had been in Opposition and were just coming into Government.
There's a desperate desire to convince people the Conservative Party hasn't run out of ideas (which it clearly has) and isn't just about Brexit (which is all that holds their new voting coalition together).
Yep. Given that Network Rail is by far the worst part of the system and is also the Nationalised bit maybe we should privatise it instead....
So just to be clear about this for the blue luvvies on here this morning.
4 by-election results in from last night. The Conservative share went down in all 4. They lost 3 of the 4 seats, two of them to huge swings to LibDems, and the SNP held the 4th comfortably.
And you talk of landslides? Gents, this ain't no 1979.
All bar Dunfermline had swings from Labour to Conservative, Dunfermline had a swing from SNP, Conservative and Labour to LD
How to take a thrashing, write some bollox about how it was really great for the Tories to lose them all.
That result is terrible for the Scottish conservatives and the first really bad result in the last. 2 to 3 years. Could be the end of Scottish Tory mps
I need convincing they haven't run out of good ideas that's why I'm so pleased about the latest rail announcement. It doesn't need to be half-baked, if they run with this policy and expand it then it will be beneficial to plenty of left behind parts of the UK.
I need convincing this isn't some election stunt but is a serious policy. As you admit, £50 million doesn't touch the sides and set that against the delay and cost overrun of Crossrail from the original forecasts (which now seem worthy of entry for the Booker Prize in the fiction category) and it puts the issue of infrastructure transport projects into focus - what about the various electrification projects such as on the West Coast mainline or on the routes to Devon and Cornwall?
Improving current links and improving current provision to reduce peak time capacity issues (such as the scandal of the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which could provide additional capacity but which have been left for years) would for me be the outline of a coherent transport policy not this nostalgic nonsense.
Comrades, there is nothing to fear about the state controlling your internet access!
Indeed, the online environment will be immeasurably improved once undesirables are prevented from polluting it with their deviant presence, leaving the proletariat to peacefully contemplate the miracle of socialism.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership. That's what's happened to the financial system: The intermediaries are all private companies so they have no obligation to deal with you or requirement to tell you why they reach the decisions they do, but they have to read the minds of the people in government who could jump on them, so the government can shut people down without even having to say anything explicit to anyone. It's the ultimate way for a government to wield power without accountability.
I need convincing they haven't run out of good ideas that's why I'm so pleased about the latest rail announcement. It doesn't need to be half-baked, if they run with this policy and expand it then it will be beneficial to plenty of left behind parts of the UK.
I need convincing this isn't some election stunt but is a serious policy. As you admit, £50 million doesn't touch the sides and set that against the delay and cost overrun of Crossrail from the original forecasts (which now seem worthy of entry for the Booker Prize in the fiction category) and it puts the issue of infrastructure transport projects into focus - what about the various electrification projects such as on the West Coast mainline or on the routes to Devon and Cornwall?
Improving current links and improving current provision to reduce peak time capacity issues (such as the scandal of the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which could provide additional capacity but which have been left for years) would for me be the outline of a coherent transport policy not this nostalgic nonsense.
It's £500m - £50m would just about clear the leaves off the lines.
Christ, this broadband policy announcement has had the same effect on the PB Tory cohort as attaching electrodes to their private parts.
Meanwhile they are purring away at the Tory policy of extending the publicly owned rail network. Not that any of this will happen. They've been wibbling about Colne - Skipton for years, and nothing is happening.
International law requires that state appropriation of assets (except in very limited circumstances such as war) must be compensated at market value. International treaties also require foreign owners of assets to be fully compensated. There are many foreign shareholders of the numerous companies (BT, water utilities, National Grid etc) that Labour wish to privatise. The compensation bill would be huge and require the issue of large volumes of new gilts....which would increase the coupon rate on not only the new gilts but all others issued for other purposes including the refinancing of over £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament.
So Labour have a simple choice if they wish to follow their plans. Breach international law and treaty obligations and take the consequences. Or only compensate foreign holders and take the consequences of stealing domestic assets (which still breaches international law). Or go ahead, and bankrupt the economy.
Madness (although the Tory spending plans would have a similar effect on gilt coupon rates, at least in direction if not size of effect).
Neither main party should be allowed near a piggy bank.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
No need to reopen the Pen to Llan route - it's already open (on the North Wales Coast mainline).
The reasons for not voting Tory are just piling up!
(PS. How the hell did you know that? I only know those places because I went to prep school there)
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I'm genuinely not sure whether the country is going to go "ooh.. free porn* and fair tax for Amazon" or "wtf? This is totally insane. Why not do Tesco while you're at it?" (*OK.. and remote access to work.. economic benefit.. unleash the content industry etc)
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
Interesting comment - you may be right, but on the other hand this combines being forward-looking with reaching voters who don't normally consider Labour - unlike, say, 10% on income support, good though that would be in absolute terms. It's certainly got media attention, and if one thing that recent years have taught us, being the story is three quarters of the battle.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
Looking forward to Labour nationalising Bad Weather and Spurs - that should get those problems sorted out asap too.... History tells us that's nailed on to work out well.
Nationalising Spurs will mean your debt for that great white elephant that is your new one billion quid stadium gets written off. Win win.
Just think how happy fans of Spurs will be when they have the best stadium in the Championship.
Leicester are going to win the premier league..... again.
Comrades, there is nothing to fear about the state controlling your internet access!
Indeed, the online environment will be immeasurably improved once undesirables are prevented from polluting it with their deviant presence, leaving the proletariat to peacefully contemplate the miracle of socialism.
Luckily Corbyn and McDonnell have so little time for dictatorships or censorious national states.... we can rest easy.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
I got a reddit ban for applying the strict definition of an uncle tom to James Cleverly in respect of his defence of Islamophobia as not racist because Islam is not a race. Such bans have no relation to the comment and are an exercise of power.
So just to be clear about this for the blue luvvies on here this morning.
4 by-election results in from last night. The Conservative share went down in all 4. They lost 3 of the 4 seats, two of them to huge swings to LibDems, and the SNP held the 4th comfortably.
And you talk of landslides? Gents, this ain't no 1979.
Outstanding.
And just look at that juicy Scottish Green vote! Our friends the Greens are putting up candidates in less than half of Scotland’s 59 constituencies. That will inevitably add a wee edge to SNP candidates in the Green-free seats. Could be decisive in some close contests.
Eurostar left in 2007 and it is now 2019 - that's twelve years and the solutions have been known for some time. I lived through the Waterloo Upgrade in August 2017 which wasn't as bad as I feared but there remain periodic issues in and around Waterloo relating to signalling and points.
The point about the Eurostar platforms is there is also the unused rail line (formerly used by Eurostar) which linked Waterloo to SE London and could provide additional services and capacity to that part of the world and an alternative commuting route instead of throwing everyone through London Bridge (another very successful upgrade) and into Charing Cross and Cannon Street. Indeed, that route was used during the 2017 upgrade works and has been used a couple of times since.
We cannot afford to have potential capacity sitting idle around London.
"When it comes to a big choice for our country about whether or not just to scrap something that is of massive potential national importance, I really do hesitate,"
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
No need to reopen the Pen to Llan route - it's already open (on the North Wales Coast mainline).
Equally that Blyth line has already been announced and funding sorted as it comes from the North of Newcastle mayor.
Watched Boris on BBC Breakfast. I have found something with which I agree with him - leaving teabags in a cup of tea (in my case a pint mug). He is the only person I now know who does the same as me.
Need a few more bits to get me to change my vote and the rest of the interview was a car crash.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
Opening railway lines increases choice and provision. Nationalising Broadband destroys choice and provision. It is a very easy message to sell - do you want the Government controlling your internet access just like in China?
The train policy is a good one. The Tories have come a long way from Thatcher and her pathological hatred of trains (surely indisputable evidence that she was a wrong 'un).
You mean the Thatcher who refused to privatise trains as she said it would be "a privitisation too far"?
I think you will find it was her idiotic successor Major who was responsible for that one.
I know Thatcher was not responsible for rail privatisation. She had good instincts about things sometimes - eg she wanted a top tax rate of 50%, Lawson convinced her to go for 40%. But she did hate trains, it is well documented.
On the by elections from last night, it is clear the Tories will have to re-gain some remainers from the libdems or they can forget about a workable majority.
Expect a Clown flip-flop in the coming days. I’d love to see the ERG pulling a tizzy in the middle of a GE campaign.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
Time to reflect on whether the tweet might have worked better as a poll
“Free broadband”? Every single person I know has broadband and it is pretty cheap. I accept rural areas may not have it and subsidies to lay the fibre to uneconomic areas would be justifiable but I don’t see it as a policy people will jump at. As for “foster productivity” How? Tell me businesses that need it and don’t have it yet.
No, shit dad. I am a bloke with only three children, and I know hundreds of verses of the wheels on the bus. I also know how to use a mop and a microwave. I can even change a nappy. Real men know how to do all these things.
If you look at the video he does know the words (although he is clearly thinking WTF am I doing this for).
He doesn’t know / isn’t doing the hand movements
I would imagine most people learn the words as children not as dads.
Johnson quite clearly did NOT know the words.
Any any parent will know those words if they ever do anything with their kids. Take them to parties, go swimming with them, those words are in play the whole time.
Truly desperate stuff. I don't know beyond the first verse, any more than I know the national anthem beyond the first verse.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
I got a reddit ban for applying the strict definition of an uncle tom to James Cleverly in respect of his defence of Islamophobia as not racist because Islam is not a race. Such bans have no relation to the comment and are an exercise of power.
Because "uncle tom" is in no way a racist expression.
“Free broadband”? Every single person I know has broadband and it is pretty cheap. I accept rural areas may not have it and subsidies to lay the fibre to uneconomic areas would be justifiable but I don’t see it as a policy people will jump at. As for “foster productivity” How? Tell me businesses that need it and don’t have it yet.
While broadband is a necessity it is also reasonably priced for most thanks to competition in the market. There are rural areas hard done by but these make up a tiny percentage of the population. Surely going after rail - something that many peoples are priced out of and urgently needs upgrading would be an actual vote winner.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale.
The policy will be popular for 3 reasons: 1. It taps into nostalgia vote, it should be hugely popular with older voters 2. It will see the greatest benefits in Labour held seats in the North and Midlands that the Tories are targeting. 3. It also aligns itself with the concept of the Conservatives being a green, environmentally friendly party (as with the fracking announcement).
This policy is should have the opposite effect to the dementia tax and the Tories IMO need to put it front and centre of their manifesto and be even more ambitious with it.
Free broadband for all if you vote Labour or if you vote Tory they will reopen open the Penmaenmawr to Llanfairfechan railway . Tough choice
Opening railway lines increases choice and provision. Nationalising Broadband destroys choice and provision. It is a very easy message to sell - do you want the Government controlling your internet access just like in China?
Within the bounds of encryption technology GCHQ have access to everything anyway. Corbyn's Volksdemocratischbreitband won't make any difference in that respect. The advantage will be you won't have to sift through 30 different providers and still feel like you're getting fucked no matter which one you choose.
As my broadband has steadily reduced in cost and increased in speed why would I feel that ?
Its things with increasing costs and reducing returns, council tax for example, which upset people.
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I'm genuinely not sure whether the country is going to go "ooh.. free porn* and fair tax for Amazon" or "wtf? This is totally insane. Why not do Tesco while you're at it?" (*OK.. and remote access to work.. economic benefit.. unleash the content industry etc)
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
Why don't they go the whole hog and offer "free" everything. Free food, free clothes, free cars. Not quite sure where the money would come from to pay for everything, but socialists never worry too much about that.
No, shit dad. I am a bloke with only three children, and I know hundreds of verses of the wheels on the bus. I also know how to use a mop and a microwave. I can even change a nappy. Real men know how to do all these things.
If you look at the video he does know the words (although he is clearly thinking WTF am I doing this for).
He doesn’t know / isn’t doing the hand movements
I would imagine most people learn the words as children not as dads.
Johnson quite clearly did NOT know the words.
Any any parent will know those words if they ever do anything with their kids. Take them to parties, go swimming with them, those words are in play the whole time.
This is a man obsessed with buses to the extent he makes models of them.
"When it comes to a big choice for our country about whether or not just to scrap something that is of massive potential national importance, I really do hesitate,"
Not Brexit. HS2.
As the population rises we need both HS2 and Heathrow.
Personally though I can do without Heathrow as Schiphol is easier and the double hop ensures I keep my points up.
While the Labour broadband policy is getting mixed feedback there is perhaps a more notable flagship announcement in the Telegraph today.
'Conservatives to reopen railway lines closed under 1960s Beeching cuts'
Although the initial budget is only £500m (which won't touch the sides), the lines mentioned include Fleetwood, Walsall, Blyth and Skelmersdale. .
I think instead of getting nostalgic about old railway lines, some of which now have roads and housing estates on them and couldn't be re-opened, I'd be asking why the current provision of rail services is so poor. Why have the Conservatives (who have been in Government for nine years) done so little to improve the railways?
Network Rail continues to struggle and capacity issues remain in most larger towns and cities. For many people, the daily commute is a grotesque, unpleasant experience. My response to this half-baked announcement wouldn't be nostalgia but anger.
Sometimes listening to the Conservative supporters on here trot out the latest half-baked nonsense from CCHQ, I wonder why they aren't defending the Party's record in Government since 2010 - you'd almost think they had been in Opposition and were just coming into Government.
There's a desperate desire to convince people the Conservative Party hasn't run out of ideas (which it clearly has) and isn't just about Brexit (which is all that holds their new voting coalition together).
I need convincing they haven't run out of good ideas that's why I'm so pleased about the latest rail announcement. It doesn't need to be half-baked, if they run with this policy and expand it then it will be beneficial to plenty of left behind parts of the UK.
There was a recent Larry Elliott article in the Guardian about precisely the towns that were left behind by the Beeching cuts. If the Tories are picking up policy from the Guardian then that's a good thing.
It's possible that Philip Inman.might have floated the idea of nationalizing BT Openreach in one of his more exasperated moments, but if I recall correctly more in a Network Rail way than in a free broadband way.
So just to be clear about this for the blue luvvies on here this morning.
4 by-election results in from last night. The Conservative share went down in all 4. They lost 3 of the 4 seats, two of them to huge swings to LibDems, and the SNP held the 4th comfortably.
And you talk of landslides? Gents, this ain't no 1979.
All bar Dunfermline had swings from Labour to Conservative, Dunfermline had a swing from SNP, Conservative and Labour to LD
Dunfermline isn't decided until second etc preference votes are counted. LD's could (admittedly unlikely) move up to send on the next count.
Edit; realise all concluded. In the final round 2 votes between SNP and LD. Not good for Tories; maybe good for United Unionist.
Just a shame then that there are no United Unionist candidates on any ballot papers.
I love how HYUFD misses two key swings from his list: the heavy swings from Conservative and Labour to the SNP.
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
Cont..... Overall I'd be very worried/depressed if I were labour, and the tories should be concerned about the South and SE. SNP should feel relaxed and confident of gains and the LDs cautiously optimistic of breakthroughs/strong comebacks
“Free broadband”? Every single person I know has broadband and it is pretty cheap. I accept rural areas may not have it and subsidies to lay the fibre to uneconomic areas would be justifiable but I don’t see it as a policy people will jump at. As for “foster productivity” How? Tell me businesses that need it and don’t have it yet.
While broadband is a necessity it is also reasonably priced for most thanks to competition in the market. There are rural areas hard done by but these make up a tiny percentage of the population. Surely going after rail - something that many peoples are priced out of and urgently needs upgrading would be an actual vote winner.
Watched Boris on BBC Breakfast. I have found something with which I agree with him - leaving teabags in a cup of tea (in my case a pint mug). He is the only person I now know who does the same as me.
Need a few more bits to get me to change my vote and the rest of the interview was a car crash.
I really dislike a lot of what he stands for and what he has responsible for, but sorry I didn't think it was a car crash. To my irritation, he came across as quite likeable. It may be phoney, but he is good at it.
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I'm genuinely not sure whether the country is going to go "ooh.. free porn* and fair tax for Amazon" or "wtf? This is totally insane. Why not do Tesco while you're at it?" (*OK.. and remote access to work.. economic benefit.. unleash the content industry etc)
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
It plants and nurtures the seed in people's minds that the only reason broadband costs people money is because of the profits made by and/or the taxes not paid made by big businesses and billionaires.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
During the Labour leadership campaign, Corbyn received heavy support from Scottish Labour. Not many Blairites north of the border after the Jim Murphy rout!
That Corbyn support has evaporated like snow off a dyke in April. They are all incandescent with rage at how he has handled the key IndyRef2 issue, and less-importantly Brexit. Not only has he been far too sympathetic to both, but he has flip-flopped badly. If a leader is going to make an unpopular decision, they must make it and then stick to their guns, not change the story every time they talk to a journalist.
This wouldn’t matter so much if Richard Leonard was remotely competent. He isn’t.
SLab are not in a happy place, and voters sense that.
Hard to believe it but Leonard seems to be the worst SLAB leader yet, given the competition that is some achievement.
Almost makes you nostalgic for the heady heights of Johann Lamont.
International law requires that state appropriation of assets (except in very limited circumstances such as war) must be compensated at market value. International treaties also require foreign owners of assets to be fully compensated. There are many foreign shareholders of the numerous companies (BT, water utilities, National Grid etc) that Labour wish to privatise. The compensation bill would be huge and require the issue of large volumes of new gilts....which would increase the coupon rate on not only the new gilts but all others issued for other purposes including the refinancing of over £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament.
So Labour have a simple choice if they wish to follow their plans. Breach international law and treaty obligations and take the consequences. Or only compensate foreign holders and take the consequences of stealing domestic assets (which still breaches international law). Or go ahead, and bankrupt the economy.
Madness (although the Tory spending plans would have a similar effect on gilt coupon rates, at least in direction if not size of effect).
Neither main party should be allowed near a piggy bank.
I am not in favour of the nationalisation but really dont understand the apocalyptic fears around it. BT has a £20bn market cap, it would still be worth something of the same order of magnitude in public hands, so the real cost is a few billion, just a rounding error in overall govt budgets.
“Free broadband”? Every single person I know has broadband and it is pretty cheap. I accept rural areas may not have it and subsidies to lay the fibre to uneconomic areas would be justifiable but I don’t see it as a policy people will jump at. As for “foster productivity” How? Tell me businesses that need it and don’t have it yet.
Loads of money has been spent subsidising rural broadband, but money is rarely the issue making installation a protracted affair. There all sorts of complicated planning issues, and requirements from utilities other than telecoms, and of course the ever present NIMBYs.
Broadband - the key is if it swings votes in the 30 to 60 range. Younger than that many of them already mooch free BB off mum and dad. Also, is line rental part of this package? If so, are landline calls? 5G also a consideration, it's going to make fibre look like dial up. And 6G will follow on a few years time. 25 quid a month. Nice, but how much is the tax bombshell?
This isn’t about providing free broadband. This is about control.
Labour want to control the internet infrastructure and thus control, effectively, the UKs internet access. At the press of a button the government and the government alone could choose to bar websites or restrict access for whatever spurious or sinister reason.
It is, in effect, allowing the UK government to do exactly as China and Russia do at the moment.
And with Corbyns and McDonnell’s history on the merits of individual liberty that’s the scary thing.
We have had internet filters in place in the UK for years, under the control of a pseudo-charity. Is it not called the Internet Watch Foundation, who have been scaremongers for well over a decade now?
It is a classic fudge - a 'voluntary' initiative which Internet Providers are required by law to implement.
They maintain a list of websites, and anything added to it gets turned off.
There is virtually no accountability, not is there any transparency.
Watched Boris on BBC Breakfast. I have found something with which I agree with him - leaving teabags in a cup of tea (in my case a pint mug). He is the only person I now know who does the same as me.
Need a few more bits to get me to change my vote and the rest of the interview was a car crash.
I really dislike a lot of what he stands for and what he has responsible for, but sorry I didn't think it was a car crash. To my irritation, he came across as quite likeable. It may be phoney, but he is good at it.
That's interesting. We had to flip channels and then go back because we found it excruciating. I don't tend to let my political bias get in the way (I think anyway) regarding the performance. For instance I think Nigel Farage is excellent, yet I don't agree with him at all. I generally I like Boris talking, but I think he is more in the after dinner mode than the interview or pretending your are interested when doing the walking in the street and kissing baby stuff (with which I have great sympathy with as I know I would rather the earth opened up and swallowed me than do that)
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
It plants and nurtures the seed in people's minds that the only reason broadband costs people money is because of the profits made by and/or the taxes not paid made by big businesses and billionaires.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
I think Corbynisms best chance will be in 5-10 years time when the Tories have inevitably failed through over promising different things to the leave coalition of voters.
Perhaps the manifesto is not aimed at this election but as you say planting seeds for younger voters to become anti capitalist.
On the "free broadband" issue, one point to note is that only 12% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the value for money offered by their broadband service according to the most recent Ofcom survey. That compares with 67% of RAIL customers are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with value for money according to the latest National Rail Passenger Survey.
So, quite apart from whether it makes sense economically, there seems to be a real danger for Labour that they are talking about a major upheaval in an area where a sizeable majority are perfectly happy with the value for money provided by their service, in stark contrast with rail.
Would people feel it was even better value for money if it was "free"? I suppose that depends on whether they see something paid for via their taxes rather than their phone bill as meaningfully being "free". But I do suspect there will be some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this.
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
Cont..... Overall I'd be very worried/depressed if I were labour, and the tories should be concerned about the South and SE. SNP should feel relaxed and confident of gains and the LDs cautiously optimistic of breakthroughs/strong comebacks
Differential turnout is clearly working in remainers’ favour in these local by-elections. The question is whether the turnout models/assumptions being used by the pollsters for a December election can be relied upon - whether the GE will see the same greater likelihood to vote among opponents to Brexit, and whether the Tories’ new coalition of anti-Brexit CDs can be relied upon on the day?
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
It plants and nurtures the seed in people's minds that the only reason broadband costs people money is because of the profits made by and/or the taxes not paid made by big businesses and billionaires.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
I think Corbynisms best chance will be in 5-10 years time when the Tories have inevitably failed through over promising different things to the leave coalition of voters.
Perhaps the manifesto is not aimed at this election but as you say planting seeds for younger voters to become anti capitalist.
Indeed, the anecdata I have to hand is that young voters are much more ant-capitalist than when I was one. Much more.
International law requires that state appropriation of assets (except in very limited circumstances such as war) must be compensated at market value. International treaties also require foreign owners of assets to be fully compensated. There are many foreign shareholders of the numerous companies (BT, water utilities, National Grid etc) that Labour wish to privatise. The compensation bill would be huge and require the issue of large volumes of new gilts....which would increase the coupon rate on not only the new gilts but all others issued for other purposes including the refinancing of over £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament.
So Labour have a simple choice if they wish to follow their plans. Breach international law and treaty obligations and take the consequences. Or only compensate foreign holders and take the consequences of stealing domestic assets (which still breaches international law). Or go ahead, and bankrupt the economy.
Madness (although the Tory spending plans would have a similar effect on gilt coupon rates, at least in direction if not size of effect).
Neither main party should be allowed near a piggy bank.
I am not in favour of the nationalisation but really dont understand the apocalyptic fears around it. BT has a £20bn market cap, it would still be worth something of the same order of magnitude in public hands, so the real cost is a few billion, just a rounding error in overall govt budgets.
The value of a business is based upon its realisable assets and expected future income.
If you're giving away the output of the business for free it becomes effectively worthless.
In fact it becomes a negative value as you would still have to make future investment in its assets, pay its employees etc.
On the "free broadband" issue, one point to note is that only 12% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the value for money offered by their broadband service according to the most recent Ofcom survey. That compares with 67% of RAIL customers are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with value for money according to the latest National Rail Passenger Survey.
So, quite apart from whether it makes sense economically, there seems to be a real danger for Labour that they are talking about a major upheaval in an area where a sizeable majority are perfectly happy with the value for money provided by their service, in stark contrast with rail.
Would people feel it was even better value for money if it was "free"? I suppose that depends on whether they see something paid for via their taxes rather than their phone bill as meaningfully being "free". But I do suspect there will be some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this.
They could make major improvements through better consumer protection and regulation without nationalisation. Capping charges for existing customers at something like 20-30% premium to their introductory discounted rates would make a big reduction in the numbers massively overpaying.
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
- “The scottish Tory first prefs held up”
Huh?
How is -6.5 and -2.3 “holding up”?
Ballot box Scotland have them as plus 2.1 and 0.7 in those two......
I well remember how relieved I was when Gordon sat there in the gallery, in a deep huff, several metres from an isolated, sad Wendy. We knew then that she, and her fantastic plan, were finish.
They would have thumped the independence side back then. Instead, Gordon threw fuel on the fire. Just as The Clown is doing now by blocking a fresh vote.
Whilst a lot is rightly made of the way Labour demonised their own voters during IndyRef I think the psychological effect of 2010 is understated. Scotland turned out at increased rate from 2005, increased Labour majorities across Scotland and ended up with a Tory government.
That was the straw that broke the camel's back which led to a SNP majority in 2011.
If nothing else, this broadband policy is ballsy and noticeable enough to bring into sharp focus the question of whether Britain is ready/keen/unwilling to go back to wide-ranging state ownership of key industries.
I'm genuinely not sure whether the country is going to go "ooh.. free porn* and fair tax for Amazon" or "wtf? This is totally insane. Why not do Tesco while you're at it?" (*OK.. and remote access to work.. economic benefit.. unleash the content industry etc)
I suspect the truth is that like other major questions of the age, there'll be 20 per cent of each, and 60 per cent in the middle who really DGAF as long as iPlayer still works.
Broadband doesn't feel like A Thing To Be Fixed as urgently as, say, rail from where I'm sitting (and I use broadband every day - a mile from the nearest rural phone exchange - but trains 3 or 4 times a year). And the undoubted remaining shortcomings in infrastructure could be far more easily remedied by (eg) chucking a couple of billion more at rural not-spots.
Legions of the Not Bothereds will not notice a benefit and will be susceptible to the Daily Mail's claims that it's all a waste of money, a return to British Leyland, and bribing people with free porn paid for with their own money.
I'd also question the targeting of this as a key policy: the early and most urgent beneficiaries will be people running businesses (or homes with five concurrent Netflix connections) in the middle of nowhere - neither of which I perceive as likely Labour voters. And the people who'll get no benefit, not understand it and see it as a massive waste of money will correlate quite closely with a higher propensity to vote (old people who still limit themselves to Freeview and a landline phone).
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
It plants and nurtures the seed in people's minds that the only reason broadband costs people money is because of the profits made by and/or the taxes not paid made by big businesses and billionaires.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
Indeed, the anecdata I have to hand is that young voters are much more ant-capitalist than when I was one. Much more.
How old are you if I may ask.
People of my cohort (Born early 80s) seem to be one of the most apolitical between the 60s/70s protesters and the new climate/campus causes of the 00s.
No, shit dad. I am a bloke with only three children, and I know hundreds of verses of the wheels on the bus. I also know how to use a mop and a microwave. I can even change a nappy. Real men know how to do all these things.
If you look at the video he does know the words (although he is clearly thinking WTF am I doing this for).
He doesn’t know / isn’t doing the hand movements
I would imagine most people learn the words as children not as dads.
Johnson quite clearly did NOT know the words.
Any any parent will know those words if they ever do anything with their kids. Take them to parties, go swimming with them, those words are in play the whole time.
Truly desperate stuff. I don't know beyond the first verse, any more than I know the national anthem beyond the first verse.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
I got a reddit ban for applying the strict definition of an uncle tom to James Cleverly in respect of his defence of Islamophobia as not racist because Islam is not a race. Such bans have no relation to the comment and are an exercise of power.
Because "uncle tom" is in no way a racist expression.
If you can think of another term with the exact same meaning please do so. The accurate use of language and truth should never be censored. The term would have been inappropriate if he had not allowed himself, as a member of a disadvantaged minority, to be used to attack a disadvantaged minority.
Encouraging to see remain voters pulling behind the LibDems in most of last night's batch of by-elections. Tactical voting could be very significant in allowing the LDs to turn votes into seats.
Or - they were local elections about local pot-holes.....
In Torbay the Tories gained a LD seat, in Tunbridge Wells the Tories lost a seat to the LDs.
LDs now more a southeast than southwest party
Conservatives got an 8.7% swing from LibDems since May. It is an interesting seat as it is part in Torbay, part in Totnes constituency.
Bad outlook for Dr. Sarah Wollaston......
Although I had a very enjoyable few hours, chatting to the Libdem teller I was with there yesterday. We got on very well.
On the "free broadband" issue, one point to note is that only 12% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the value for money offered by their broadband service according to the most recent Ofcom survey. That compares with 67% of RAIL customers are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with value for money according to the latest National Rail Passenger Survey.
So, quite apart from whether it makes sense economically, there seems to be a real danger for Labour that they are talking about a major upheaval in an area where a sizeable majority are perfectly happy with the value for money provided by their service, in stark contrast with rail.
Would people feel it was even better value for money if it was "free"? I suppose that depends on whether they see something paid for via their taxes rather than their phone bill as meaningfully being "free". But I do suspect there will be some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this.
They could make major improvements through better consumer protection and regulation without nationalisation. Capping charges for existing customers at something like 20-30% premium to their introductory discounted rates would make a big reduction in the numbers massively overpaying.
Indeed. This is dogma though, with a desire to buy votes form those that can't remember how shit nationalised companies were. Still it will be a continuation of "taking back control" and returning us to the 1970s I guess!
From a short term political perspective I dont see how it does much harm to Labour, like you say most wont care until it doesnt work for them. The people it will play very badly with were rarely potential Labour voters in the first place and it may enthuse some younger voters to go for Labour ahead of not voting or another party.
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
It plants and nurtures the seed in people's minds that the only reason broadband costs people money is because of the profits made by and/or the taxes not paid made by big businesses and billionaires.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
I think Corbynisms best chance will be in 5-10 years time when the Tories have inevitably failed through over promising different things to the leave coalition of voters.
Perhaps the manifesto is not aimed at this election but as you say planting seeds for younger voters to become anti capitalist.
Indeed, the anecdata I have to hand is that young voters are much more ant-capitalist than when I was one. Much more.
I mean, with our prospects and the environment and the general state of things, why wouldn't we be? The main issue is the far right are also trying to capitalise on the dislike of capitalism, and capital is much more willing to side with the far right than even moderate reform. Look at the billionaires coming out saying they may vote / support Trump over Warren, when Warren is hardly to the left at all.
On the "free broadband" issue, one point to note is that only 12% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the value for money offered by their broadband service according to the most recent Ofcom survey. That compares with 67% of RAIL customers are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with value for money according to the latest National Rail Passenger Survey.
So, quite apart from whether it makes sense economically, there seems to be a real danger for Labour that they are talking about a major upheaval in an area where a sizeable majority are perfectly happy with the value for money provided by their service, in stark contrast with rail.
Would people feel it was even better value for money if it was "free"? I suppose that depends on whether they see something paid for via their taxes rather than their phone bill as meaningfully being "free". But I do suspect there will be some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this.
Although today, only 4 million people will get on a train, so that's only 2.6 million dissatisfied people. Perhaps 40 million will use broadband. That's 4.8 million dissatisfied people.
I well remember how relieved I was when Gordon sat there in the gallery, in a deep huff, several metres from an isolated, sad Wendy. We knew then that she, and her fantastic plan, were finish.
They would have thumped the independence side back then. Instead, Gordon threw fuel on the fire. Just as The Clown is doing now by blocking a fresh vote.
Whilst a lot is rightly made of the way Labour demonised their own voters during IndyRef I think the psychological effect of 2010 is understated. Scotland turned out at increased rate from 2005, increased Labour majorities across Scotland and ended up with a Tory government.
That was the straw that broke the camel's back which led to a SNP majority in 2011.
I remember John Reid on the morning after the 2010 GE. The man was crushed. He was entirely dismissive of negotiating with the Lib Dems and the SNP. That idiotic attitude ushered in the Tories and Brexit. That is how much Reid and his ilk detest the SNP.
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
And without there being any competition if anything goes wrong, or speeds aren't as promised or you have an issue what are you going to do about it?
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible." "Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying." "That's unacceptable.." " Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn." "But...6 weeks?" "Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments". "But contractually.." "Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do." "But..." "Is that all Sir?" "No, I want to complain" "Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn " "So what do I do?" "Wait Sir." "Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code." "Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
Watched Boris on BBC Breakfast. I have found something with which I agree with him - leaving teabags in a cup of tea (in my case a pint mug). He is the only person I now know who does the same as me.
Need a few more bits to get me to change my vote and the rest of the interview was a car crash.
I really dislike a lot of what he stands for and what he has responsible for, but sorry I didn't think it was a car crash. To my irritation, he came across as quite likeable. It may be phoney, but he is good at it.
That's interesting. We had to flip channels and then go back because we found it excruciating. I don't tend to let my political bias get in the way (I think anyway) regarding the performance. For instance I think Nigel Farage is excellent, yet I don't agree with him at all. I generally I like Boris talking, but I think he is more in the after dinner mode than the interview or pretending your are interested when doing the walking in the street and kissing baby stuff (with which I have great sympathy with as I know I would rather the earth opened up and swallowed me than do that)
The standing on a broken piece of glass was pretty cringey, but other than that I should thing his spin doctors would be happy with it. I would rather have Naga Munchetty as PM any day though!
No, shit dad. I am a bloke with only three children, and I know hundreds of verses of the wheels on the bus. I also know how to use a mop and a microwave. I can even change a nappy. Real men know how to do all these things.
If you look at the video he does know the words (although he is clearly thinking WTF am I doing this for).
He doesn’t know / isn’t doing the hand movements
I would imagine most people learn the words as children not as dads.
Johnson quite clearly did NOT know the words.
Any any parent will know those words if they ever do anything with their kids. Take them to parties, go swimming with them, those words are in play the whole time.
Truly desperate stuff. I don't know beyond the first verse, any more than I know the national anthem beyond the first verse.
I'd be more worried about regulated private companies with ambiguously defined censorship requirements than outright state ownership.
I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?
I got a reddit ban for applying the strict definition of an uncle tom to James Cleverly in respect of his defence of Islamophobia as not racist because Islam is not a race. Such bans have no relation to the comment and are an exercise of power.
Because "uncle tom" is in no way a racist expression.
If you can think of another term with the exact same meaning please do so. The accurate use of language and truth should never be censored. The term would have been inappropriate if he had not allowed himself, as a member of a disadvantaged minority, to be used to attack a disadvantaged minority.
I mean, I don't think white people should call black people "uncle tom", but I don't think the term is inherently racist. It is a method of calling out black people who assist racism / racist structure, of which there are some, usually by other black people.
The local by elections last night that have come in so far were very positive for the SNP, LDs and Plaid, poor for the Tories and disastrous for Labour. The scottish Tory first prefs held up but they are clearly suffering from transfers and the SNP went up more, suggests a few losses but if vote holding up then the bigger majorities will hold (5 or 6 of them) Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
- “The scottish Tory first prefs held up”
Huh?
How is -6.5 and -2.3 “holding up”?
Ballot box Scotland have them as plus 2.1 and 0.7 in those two......
OK. Clearly some mix up. The results I’ve seen, both on PB and Kelly are:
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
And without there being any competition if anything goes wrong, or speeds aren't as promised or you have an issue what are you going to do about it?
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible." "Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying." "That's unacceptable.." " Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn." "But...6 weeks?" "Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments". "But contractually.." "Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do." "But..." "Is that all Sir?" "No, I want to complain" "Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn " "So what do I do?" "Wait Sir." "Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code." "Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
Are you telling me that under nationalised broadband if I have an issue I'd get to talk to a real human being!? Hot diggidy, where can I get that upgrade?
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
And without there being any competition if anything goes wrong, or speeds aren't as promised or you have an issue what are you going to do about it?
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible." "Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying." "That's unacceptable.." " Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn." "But...6 weeks?" "Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments". "But contractually.." "Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do." "But..." "Is that all Sir?" "No, I want to complain" "Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn " "So what do I do?" "Wait Sir." "Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code." "Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
Are you telling me that under nationalised broadband if I have an issue I'd get to talk to a real human being!? Hot diggidy, where can I get that upgrade?
Dura_Ace said: "I got a 12 hour Twitter ban for saying I wished the Duke of Edinburgh had died when he plowed his Disco into those two women in a Kia. How the fuck did they come up with 12 hours and what did they think it would achieve?"
Nothing to do with what you said. Everything to do with their corporate image and what they need to do to protect it.
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
And without there being any competition if anything goes wrong, or speeds aren't as promised or you have an issue what are you going to do about it?
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible." "Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying." "That's unacceptable.." " Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn." "But...6 weeks?" "Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments". "But contractually.." "Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do." "But..." "Is that all Sir?" "No, I want to complain" "Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn " "So what do I do?" "Wait Sir." "Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code." "Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
Yep, and you will be told that you are a bad person for complaining and all those hard working engineers that we should be proud of because it is "our" British Broadband and it is the envy of the world.
International law requires that state appropriation of assets (except in very limited circumstances such as war) must be compensated at market value. International treaties also require foreign owners of assets to be fully compensated. There are many foreign shareholders of the numerous companies (BT, water utilities, National Grid etc) that Labour wish to privatise. The compensation bill would be huge and require the issue of large volumes of new gilts....which would increase the coupon rate on not only the new gilts but all others issued for other purposes including the refinancing of over £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament.
So Labour have a simple choice if they wish to follow their plans. Breach international law and treaty obligations and take the consequences. Or only compensate foreign holders and take the consequences of stealing domestic assets (which still breaches international law). Or go ahead, and bankrupt the economy.
Madness (although the Tory spending plans would have a similar effect on gilt coupon rates, at least in direction if not size of effect).
Neither main party should be allowed near a piggy bank.
I am not in favour of the nationalisation but really dont understand the apocalyptic fears around it. BT has a £20bn market cap, it would still be worth something of the same order of magnitude in public hands, so the real cost is a few billion, just a rounding error in overall govt budgets.
The value of a business is based upon its realisable assets and expected future income.
If you're giving away the output of the business for free it becomes effectively worthless.
In fact it becomes a negative value as you would still have to make future investment in its assets, pay its employees etc.
BT boss said that the pension scheme is 60 billion alone.
Indeed, the anecdata I have to hand is that young voters are much more ant-capitalist than when I was one. Much more.
How old are you if I may ask.
People of my cohort (Born early 80s) seem to be one of the most apolitical between the 60s/70s protesters and the new climate/campus causes of the 00s.
Early 50s. I first voted in 1987. I think we were an apolitical generation in many ways. There was no obviously democratic socialist option available.
I helped my grandparents pick their provider, as they were bought a firestick so they could have more options to watch TV (and us grandkids could have wifi at weekly dinner). I get the feeling they'll ask us young 'uns about it this evening and we'll all agree we hate our current providers and that it massively depends on what the government offer. I mean, we are lucky that we aren't the US and don't have to deal with the likes of practical monopolies in some areas, but having a state owned internet grid would deffo make it more likely that those who are off line (rural, poor, elderly) would have at least the option to be online if they wished to use it.
And without there being any competition if anything goes wrong, or speeds aren't as promised or you have an issue what are you going to do about it?
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible." "Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying." "That's unacceptable.." " Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn." "But...6 weeks?" "Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments". "But contractually.." "Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do." "But..." "Is that all Sir?" "No, I want to complain" "Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn " "So what do I do?" "Wait Sir." "Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code." "Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
And even if private BB isn't driven put completely, openreach will simply prioritize work on the nationalized infrastructure so you'd get no quicker resolution from a private co anyway (and be 25 quid a month worse off)
Do Labour “remainers” even care that most of these Labour nationalisation plans would not be remotely legal without leaving the EU? Specifically the way they intend to “pay” for the nationalisation, if not the act themselves.
And for the love of god, will somebody try to get the message through that evil “shareholders” are every single person with a private pension fund. And indirectly actually every single person in the country, given that this includes “funded” public sector pension schemes eg Local Govt etc.
Labour intends to destroy shareholder value on the one hand, and indeed destroy bond holder value as well by basically “printing” Govt bonds to “pay” for everything. What is there left for pension schemes to invest in?
If "destroying shareholder value" is important, then why are you supporting Brexit, which causes that by definition?
If financially incontinent implausible spending plans based on lies are important, then why aren't you condemning Boris Johnson's plans as well as Jeremy Corbyn's?
Why are you complaining when every Leaver's fervent actions for the past two decades has specifcalky led to this? Two parties chock full of overporivileged [rude word] vying with each other for who can lie the biggest (and, to be fair, a third doing the same and failing).
Are you telling me that under nationalised broadband if I have an issue I'd get to talk to a real human being!? Hot diggidy, where can I get that upgrade?
What you will not be able to do is threaten to leave your provider unless the service improves, because if there is "free" broadband there almost certainly will not be any cheap competion. The only alternatives will be premium services that are out of the reach of most people.
Comments
Indeed, the online environment will be immeasurably improved once undesirables are prevented from polluting it with their deviant presence, leaving the proletariat to peacefully contemplate the miracle of socialism.
Govts should not be fiddling with it for ideological reasons.
Improving current links and improving current provision to reduce peak time capacity issues (such as the scandal of the former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which could provide additional capacity but which have been left for years) would for me be the outline of a coherent transport policy not this nostalgic nonsense.
They would have thumped the independence side back then. Instead, Gordon threw fuel on the fire. Just as The Clown is doing now by blocking a fresh vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWk29MhTb-g&t=193s
Diane Abbott really is a piece of work.
The latest example was PornHub getting cut off by PayPal.
Meanwhile they are purring away at the Tory policy of extending the publicly owned rail network. Not that any of this will happen. They've been wibbling about Colne - Skipton for years, and nothing is happening.
International law requires that state appropriation of assets (except in very limited circumstances such as war) must be compensated at market value.
International treaties also require foreign owners of assets to be fully compensated.
There are many foreign shareholders of the numerous companies (BT, water utilities, National Grid etc) that Labour wish to privatise.
The compensation bill would be huge and require the issue of large volumes of new gilts....which would increase the coupon rate on not only the new gilts but all others issued for other purposes including the refinancing of over £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament.
So Labour have a simple choice if they wish to follow their plans. Breach international law and treaty obligations and take the consequences. Or only compensate foreign holders and take the consequences of stealing domestic assets (which still breaches international law). Or go ahead, and bankrupt the economy.
Madness (although the Tory spending plans would have a similar effect on gilt coupon rates, at least in direction if not size of effect).
Neither main party should be allowed near a piggy bank.
(PS. How the hell did you know that? I only know those places because I went to prep school there)
hopefully.
He doesn't know how many children he has.
Numbers not Bozo's strong point.
And just look at that juicy Scottish Green vote! Our friends the Greens are putting up candidates in less than half of Scotland’s 59 constituencies. That will inevitably add a wee edge to SNP candidates in the Green-free seats. Could be decisive in some close contests.
The point about the Eurostar platforms is there is also the unused rail line (formerly used by Eurostar) which linked Waterloo to SE London and could provide additional services and capacity to that part of the world and an alternative commuting route instead of throwing everyone through London Bridge (another very successful upgrade) and into Charing Cross and Cannon Street. Indeed, that route was used during the 2017 upgrade works and has been used a couple of times since.
We cannot afford to have potential capacity sitting idle around London.
"When it comes to a big choice for our country about whether or not just to scrap something that is of massive potential national importance, I really do hesitate,"
Not Brexit. HS2.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7688099/SAS-hero-saved-hundreds-shot-dead-two-terrorists-Kenya-awarded-Gallantry-Cross.html
I watched this a you tube video a while back - a very, very brave man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJni7zeiN0
Equally that Blyth line has already been announced and funding sorted as it comes from the North of Newcastle mayor.
Need a few more bits to get me to change my vote and the rest of the interview was a car crash.
Its things with increasing costs and reducing returns, council tax for example, which upset people.
Shap perhaps is a Rory effect but Tunbridge Wells shows the danger in tory remainshire of the LD peril. Th
It is a recognition from Labour that they are aiming for a hung parliament rather than majority though, as it is not the kind of policy to win over middle England.
Personally though I can do without Heathrow as Schiphol is easier and the double hop ensures I keep my points up.
It's possible that Philip Inman.might have floated the idea of nationalizing BT Openreach in one of his more exasperated moments, but if I recall correctly more in a Network Rail way than in a free broadband way.
I love how HYUFD misses two key swings from his list: the heavy swings from Conservative and Labour to the SNP.
Overall I'd be very worried/depressed if I were labour, and the tories should be concerned about the South and SE. SNP should feel relaxed and confident of gains and the LDs cautiously optimistic of breakthroughs/strong comebacks
SNP: 42.8% (+16.5)
CON: 24.4% (-2.3)
LAB: 15.2% (-4.3)
LD 7.9% (-0.9)
IND: 5.0% (+2.9)
GRN: 4.2% (+0.7)
LBT: 0.5% (+0.5)
SNP HOLD.
If it weren't for unfairness of capitalism, things would be free. That's a powerful political message.
25 quid a month. Nice, but how much is the tax bombshell?
It is a classic fudge - a 'voluntary' initiative which Internet Providers are required by law to implement.
They maintain a list of websites, and anything added to it gets turned off.
There is virtually no accountability, not is there any transparency.
They stopped everyone editing wikipedia one day, because they banned an image on a 30 year old record cover that was widely available, without any proof that it was illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia
But always poor for labour.
Perhaps the manifesto is not aimed at this election but as you say planting seeds for younger voters to become anti capitalist.
So, quite apart from whether it makes sense economically, there seems to be a real danger for Labour that they are talking about a major upheaval in an area where a sizeable majority are perfectly happy with the value for money provided by their service, in stark contrast with rail.
Would people feel it was even better value for money if it was "free"? I suppose that depends on whether they see something paid for via their taxes rather than their phone bill as meaningfully being "free". But I do suspect there will be some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this.
Huh?
How is -6.5 and -2.3 “holding up”?
Current best prices in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey:
SNP 1/7
SCon 6/1
SLD 12/1
SLab 33/1
Bxp 100/1
Expect SLD/SCon crossover this afternoon?
If you're giving away the output of the business for free it becomes effectively worthless.
In fact it becomes a negative value as you would still have to make future investment in its assets, pay its employees etc.
That was the straw that broke the camel's back which led to a SNP majority in 2011.
People of my cohort (Born early 80s) seem to be one of the most apolitical between the 60s/70s protesters and the new climate/campus causes of the 00s.
Bad outlook for Dr. Sarah Wollaston......
Although I had a very enjoyable few hours, chatting to the Libdem teller I was with there yesterday. We got on very well.
Looks like great politics to me.
"My broadband keeps dropping out, and speeds are really terrible."
"Sorry Sir we'll get an engineer to you in about 6 weeks. Other than that keep trying."
"That's unacceptable.."
" Sir, it's free broadband. Please wait your turn."
"But...6 weeks?"
"Yes Sir. Standard BB waiting time for an engineer. In some circumstances up to 10 weeks dependent on engineer commitments".
"But contractually.."
"Sorry Sir. BB clearly states the terms of service in the provision of your broadband. There's nothing I can do."
"But..."
"Is that all Sir?"
"No, I want to complain"
"Sorry Sir, I can forward you to our complaints department but they will say the same thing. Your Broadband is provided to you by BB for free. Please await your turn "
"So what do I do?"
"Wait Sir."
"Unacceptable. I want to move provider. Please can I have a transfer code."
"Sorry Sir. There are no other providers other than BB. Please await your engineer as indicated. Thank you for calling BB".
Dunfermline East (Fife) first preferences:
SNP: 33.2% (+9.1)
CON: 24.8% (-6.5)
LDEM: 22.8% (+13.8)
LAB: 13.5% (-6.3)
GRN: 5.1% (+0.9)
LBT: 0.6% (+0.6)
SNP GAIN from Conservative.
Rosyth (Fife) first preferences:
SNP: 42.8% (+16.5)
CON: 24.4% (-2.3)
LAB: 15.2% (-4.3)
LDEM: 7.9% (-0.9)
IND: 5.0% (+2.9)
GRN: 4.2% (+0.7)
LBT: 0.5% (+0.5)
SNP HOLD.
Nothing to do with what you said. Everything to do with their corporate image and what they need to do to protect it.
If financially incontinent implausible spending plans based on lies are important, then why aren't you condemning Boris Johnson's plans as well as Jeremy Corbyn's?
Why are you complaining when every Leaver's fervent actions for the past two decades has specifcalky led to this? Two parties chock full of overporivileged [rude word] vying with each other for who can lie the biggest (and, to be fair, a third doing the same and failing).
Godsdammit, I hate this election.