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 aSNIPe 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.
Whilst enjoying the fruits of capitalism - strange old world
Labour will destroy the economy and some of you still witter on about Brexit
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!
She was excellent. I must admit the cafetiere moment was one where we flipped, took a deep breath and went back. Maybe I am judging by that.
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?
You will get a real person to speak to, but they will tell you to fuck off, stop complaining because they are on a tea break, oh and by the way we are on strike next week. Some of us remember what nationalised industries were like. "Service" was a misnomer. A lot of the current utilities are bad, but they have nothing on the old British Telecom.
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 aSNIPe 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.
Whilst enjoying the fruits of capitalism - strange old world
Labour will destroy the economy and some of you still witter on about Brexit
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
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.
You're lucky, I got a week for saying Ofcom should "rip the heads off Sky News" for their lying about empty chairing James Cleverly.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
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.
I have no problem with the principle of nationalisation. Sometimes it is the best way to go. But it needs to be within a sensible economic regime. The market caps for those nationalisations suggested by Labour so far include; BT £19bn National Grid £31bn United Utilities £6bn Severn Trent £5bn Pennon £4bn Energy distribution cos £?bn (unclear because largely foreign owned) Smaller water cos ?bn Rail companies ?bn (unclear because rail usually part of wider transport group)
Even the most optimistic analyst would set the bill well in excess of £100bn. But it is not the bill which is the problem. If that could be funded at current gilt rates it may be worthwhile. The problem is the huge additional bill caused by the knock on effect to gilt rates, and especially the cost of issuing new gilts for general government business and to refinance maturities. Not a single politician has admitted this cost.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
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.
I guess it depends on what Labour conceive as the problem they are trying to address.
If it is a customer service problem, quite apart from the fact satisfaction surveys don't show the concern as being that widely shared, is it really going to be resolved by the engineers and call centre staff being classified as civil servants rather than public sector employees?
If it is a pure price problem, again there isn't a lot of evidence the view that value for money is poor is widely held, and you could address it in other, much less costly ways for the least well off in society (e.g. via changes to BT's universal service obligation).
If it is the issue for prices for longer term customers, there are simpler regulatory routes as you say. Although I've got to say that I've never really seen the big problem with price discrimination of this sort. You can't assist the lazy (or, more kindly, those who value their time too much to faff about shopping around) without punishing the thrifty. Some people are perfectly willing to pay for the convenience of not switching suppliers every five minutes (and not going to six shops to get the very best price on ketchup).
If the issue is the final few percent of rural broadband, then it isn't clear how buying up the network in Glasgow, London, Cardiff, and elsewhere where there is no shortage of private incentive to invest helps you out.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
So I have the choice between multiple turds, great.
Mr Floater, the big problem with Brexit is that it is potentially economy wrecking in itself. The choice is therefore, would you like the economy slightly wrecked by the Conservatives (an inappropriate name nowadays) or seriously wrecked by Labour, Brexit also making it more possible for Labour to be unfettered in their economy wrecking. That is where we are with our politics. It is tragic.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
If you work you have a pension.
I have a pension plan, sure. Do I believe that pension age isn't going to increase to an age where I'm more likely to die than be able to use my pension? No. Do I believe that catastrophic climate change will change the face of the planet making my "golden years" anything but peaceful? Yes. Do I think capitalism will have resolved its internal contradictions and not be in crisis in the next 50 years? Hell no...
I think some of the Surrey near-marginals are in play. Outside flutters on Guildford and Woking. The latter went very yellow at the European Elections and I know people there who think it's turning LibDem.
There may be some other tory seats that are vulnerable. I'm not convinced Esher & Walton is totally safe. Even Epsom & Ewell could see a big swing.
I think the only question is which seats the LDs won’t take.
My predictions of 34 LibDem seats
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Eastbourne Hazel Grove Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Lewes North Cornwall North Devon North Norfolk Oxford West and Abingdon Portsmouth South Richmond Park Sheffield, Hallam Southport St Albans St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Twickenham Wells Westmorland and Lonsdale Winchester Montgomeryshire Ceredigion Brecon and Radnorshire plus five in Scotland
Wimbledon would be a bonus.
Those are not a bad start, but I would add South Cambs, and would expect some others across Wessex and the Thames Valley. There are other possibilities too such as Berwick.
And whatever MM tries to convince you, Totnes is in play for Sarah Wollaston. There are lots of others that I think may go yellow. Guildford is a real possibility.
You've also missed some London seats from the list. Islington South looks very good as a LibDem gain from Labour.
I don't buy this analysis at all. Why would young people want the government to run the Internet for them?
Young people all buy their own phones - they like competition there, diversity of pricing and services. They understand how it works. I don't see how broadband is very different. Martin Lewis has been educating the nation for 15 years on making these sort of systems work for the consumer. Would young people like to dump all that and replace it with a one size fits all policy, sharing the same product as the oldies who don't know how to use the Internets but check their email every week?
This broadband policy is terrible economically and I don't think it is good politically either. It opens the door to nationalisation across all sorts of areas where it just ain't going to be popular, for good reason.
Labours broadband policy could be popular if sold properly. On the face of it , is this really a priority for the country.
However if you list the possible benefits.
More people can work from home.
Businesses who previously were concerned might be willing to set up out of major towns , more jobs for the local economy .
Good for overall productivity.
More people working from home equals less car journeys , better for the environment.
The policy by itself I don’t think is a major winner unless the public understand the benefits .
There are no benefits. There is no evidence that a state monopoly would deliver it faster or better than what we currently have. I mean, let's face it, WTF does thick Corbyn understand about tech? Or running a business, or running anything? Venezuela here we come.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
You'll certainly reach an age when you'll be able to access the private pension pot in the scheme that your employer (with very limited exceptions) has to enrol you in.
You can say present day pensioners have an easy time compared with your generation, and I have some sympathy with that. But you almost certainly do have a pension fund which you will some day draw on, and that's what "institutional shareholders" are.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
So I have the choice between multiple turds, great.
Sorry but negotiating discounts with broadband providers is super easy. They know it’s a game. You know it’s a game. The minimum they’ll do is honour the joining offer of a rival. Same with mobile phone contracts.
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.
I'm starting to fear for Boris. There's something about his campaign, so far, that doesn't feel right. Labour have seized the discussion with their Broadband goodies, and Boris is bogged down with 'The Wheels on the Bus' for heaven's sake. My worry is that the electorate will give him the Theresa treatment just for sh*ts and giggles.
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
Understandable concern. I have two kids much younger than you. However, a socialist economy will not give you better prospects to retire or anything else. Better more targeted regulation is what is needed. Nationalisation with "free" everything is for the birds and cynical socialists who think they can con you into voting for them. You will just end up paying a lot more later.
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.
Yes, we're the generation of voters who thought it would be a jolly jape to elect Boris the Buffoon as Mayor of London. The don't get caught taking anything seriously generation. (I don't fit in, obviously).
I think some of the Surrey near-marginals are in play. Outside flutters on Guildford and Woking. The latter went very yellow at the European Elections and I know people there who think it's turning LibDem.
There may be some other tory seats that are vulnerable. I'm not convinced Esher & Walton is totally safe. Even Epsom & Ewell could see a big swing.
I think the only question is which seats the LDs won’t take.
My predictions of 34 LibDem seats
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Eastbourne Hazel Grove Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Lewes North Cornwall North Devon North Norfolk Oxford West and Abingdon Portsmouth South Richmond Park Sheffield, Hallam Southport St Albans St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Twickenham Wells Westmorland and Lonsdale Winchester Montgomeryshire Ceredigion Brecon and Radnorshire plus five in Scotland
Wimbledon would be a bonus.
Those are not a bad start, but I would add South Cambs, and would expect some others across Wessex and the Thames Valley. There are other possibilities too such as Berwick.
And whatever MM tries to convince you, Totnes is in play for Sarah Wollaston. There are lots of others that I think may go yellow. Guildford is a real possibility.
You've also missed some London seats from the list. Islington South looks very good as a LibDem gain from Labour.
I think some of the Surrey near-marginals are in play. Outside flutters on Guildford and Woking. The latter went very yellow at the European Elections and I know people there who think it's turning LibDem.
There may be some other tory seats that are vulnerable. I'm not convinced Esher & Walton is totally safe. Even Epsom & Ewell could see a big swing.
I think the only question is which seats the LDs won’t take.
My predictions of 34 LibDem seats
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Eastbourne Hazel Grove Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Lewes North Cornwall North Devon North Norfolk Oxford West and Abingdon Portsmouth South Richmond Park Sheffield, Hallam Southport St Albans St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Twickenham Wells Westmorland and Lonsdale Winchester Montgomeryshire Ceredigion Brecon and Radnorshire plus five in Scotland
Wimbledon would be a bonus.
Those are not a bad start, but I would add South Cambs, and would expect some others across Wessex and the Thames Valley. There are other possibilities too such as Berwick.
And whatever MM tries to convince you, Totnes is in play for Sarah Wollaston. There are lots of others that I think may go yellow. Guildford is a real possibility.
You've also missed some London seats from the list. Islington South looks very good as a LibDem gain from Labour.
MM is a local canvasser with a good track record of providing quality insight. Where do you derive your understanding of this constituency?
A good indication of Wollaston's personal support is her % vote compared with her Conservative MP predecessor. I would not suggest Wollaston is winning as an LD, but her personal regard (which I know from friends (not LDs) down there, is higher than any other MP I know. I would not have bet against her as an indie.
However I do take issue with some of the other seats on the quoted LD gain list. The chances of gaining Montgomeryshire, as an example, seem remote to me. Finchley and Guildford seem much better prospects.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Every time you turn on a light you're helping your pension. It's a thought I suppose.
I wonder I the amount you pay or keeping the light on matches the amount your pension pot grows - suspect not. You could also ask about all the investment property owned by pension funds.
I'm starting to fear for Boris. There's something about his campaign, so far, that doesn't feel right. Labour have seized the discussion with their Broadband goodies, and Boris is bogged down with 'The Wheels on the Bus' for heaven's sake. My worry is that the electorate will give him the Theresa treatment just for sh*ts and giggles.
Yup, we're several pages into a defacto broadband thread with all kinds of usually on-message Tory tub-thumpers and nobody has yet mentioned that Labour are going to pay for their thing by taxing cat pictures. The lights are on but noone's home.
I'm starting to fear for Boris. There's something about his campaign, so far, that doesn't feel right. Labour have seized the discussion with their Broadband goodies, and Boris is bogged down with 'The Wheels on the Bus' for heaven's sake. My worry is that the electorate will give him the Theresa treatment just for sh*ts and giggles.
Yup, we're several pages into a defacto broadband thread with all kinds of usually on-message Tory tub-thumpers and nobody has yet mentioned that Labour are going to pay for their thing by taxing cat pictures. The lights are on but noone's home.
I don't like the broadband policy but taxing cat pictures is a winner for me.
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 banned permanently in August 2019 for posting a ‘Footballs coming home’ meme in June 2018
The point is the public are overpaying for so many of these basic services and simply lining the pockets of institutional shareholders. While I'm no fan of Corbyn and McDonnell's Marxism, there is a point that it can't just be about the private sector and profit.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
If you work you have a pension.
I have a pension plan, sure. Do I believe that pension age isn't going to increase to an age where I'm more likely to die than be able to use my pension? No. Do I believe that catastrophic climate change will change the face of the planet making my "golden years" anything but peaceful? Yes. Do I think capitalism will have resolved its internal contradictions and not be in crisis in the next 50 years? Hell no...
The answer to that isn't the re-introduction of Soviet style communism.I'm not that much older than you but I'm old enough to remember the old Soviet block.
If you want to see the implications of ideologically ridding a society of capitalism spend some time looking at your history.
If you can't be bothered a clue is this: It didn't work.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
So I have the choice between multiple turds, great.
Why do you think that changing Virgin and BT's staff and management from private sector employees into civil servants is likely to resolve your concerns over customer service?
The polling dog that hasn't barked for over a week is the Lib Dem commissioned constituency polls. I don't think that they would be a declarable election expense as they aren't directly linked to campaigning. If do it is possible that they have started to come up results that they don't want voters to see.
Plenty of organisations commission polls which don't get published. I expect the Conservative and Labour parties do private polling which we don't see.
Why should polls commissioned by the Liberal Democrats have to be published? Why would the Liberal Democrats, just like any other organisation, release into the public domain information which would be disadvantageous?
If a private Conservative Party poll showed a poor result, should that be published as well?
The argument is
(1) they have published favourable ones in the past
(2) these have not been published
(3) therefore they are not favourable
I forget which logical fallacy this is, but I’m pretty sure it’s a classic
Apropos all the 'it were terrible getting a phone line in the Soviet Republic of Harold Wilson' stuff, are there any free market examples from the period to compare it to? Eg does anyone know what was it like getting a line in the USA at the time?
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.
I read somewhere-HYUFD I think -that the by elections produced an almighty swing to the Tories. Anyone know where it is?
Banterman said: "You're lucky, I got a week for saying Ofcom should "rip the heads off Sky News" for their lying about empty chairing James Cleverly."
Yes - again they are protecting their corporate image by punsihing you with no punishment for Sky (who deserved to be punished).
My appeal that it was a well known phrase used as a metaphor and that a regulator couldn't actually remove physically the heads of a corporation was rejected. Based on the rest of Twitter, calling them a bunch of lying c words would be perfectly acceptable.
Good old free at the point of use, socialist, sorry, social media.
He is also banking on a unilateral tax on amazon, google etc
Obviously, he's not convincing you but your colours are well and truly nailed to the Boris Johnson mast. I have to say "free Broadband" is an attractive slogan and we pay far too much for it and are ripped off by BT and all the other providers.
Why is calling for the abolition of the licence fee a reasonable policy but calling for price reductions or even the provision of free broadband "unconvincing"?
Apropos all the 'it were terrible getting a phone line in the Soviet Republic of Harold Wilson' stuff, are there any free market examples from the period to compare it to? Eg does anyone know what was it like getting a line in the USA at the time?
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
So I have the choice between multiple turds, great.
Why do you think that changing Virgin and BT's staff and management from private sector employees into civil servants is likely to resolve your concerns over customer service?
It'll get worse as Johnny Mc cuts all the managements pay and they all leave.
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?
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?
You will get a real person to speak to, but they will tell you to fuck off, stop complaining because they are on a tea break, oh and by the way we are on strike next week. Some of us remember what nationalised industries were like. "Service" was a misnomer. A lot of the current utilities are bad, but they have nothing on the old British Telecom.
I expect I remember them just as well as you do and so does everybody else who remembers them and favours renationalisation. The "examples" given here of how bad things were at that time tend to be, well, fantasy. Did anyone working in customer service at a nationalised utility ever tell you or anyone you know to f*** off? British Telecom when nationalised never used to rob dead and bereaved people the way TalkTalk does, or con people into thinking they won't assume they've got a continuing direct debit authorisation when actually they will, the way Vodafone does. Three didn't literally tell me to f*** off but I did get an email from someone called "Executive Office" at that company who refused to send me a statement of account and told me I'd get the same reply if I asked again, which is quite close to "f*** off". When I moved to a new address in Cambridge a water company tried to charge me for five months' water in advance. When I told them they had no right to do that, and that they were welcome to cut me off if they thought otherwise, some girl over the phone told me that the amount they were trying to charge me was what I "owed" them.
But you come up with ideas about how under nationalisation everyone was on a tea break or on strike, or how "choice" means the service must necessarily be better. Yes the nationalised services were crap, and nobody thinks they were a paradise, but in general they provided a damned sight better service than the crap we get now from the private sector.
In the old days at a railway station if you wanted a ticket to any station in the country the counter clerk would tell you the price within half a minute. Nowadays they are more likely to look at a monitor screen for a few minutes with their mouth open and then make a guess, and perhaps they will need your help as what to what the best guess is, given the various alternatives coming up. Or they'll say it's nothing to do with them and that you'll have to ask a different company.
And I haven't even started on bus services. Look what a sewer "choice" has thrown those services into.
The polling dog that hasn't barked for over a week is the Lib Dem commissioned constituency polls. I don't think that they would be a declarable election expense as they aren't directly linked to campaigning. If do it is possible that they have started to come up results that they don't want voters to see.
Plenty of organisations commission polls which don't get published. I expect the Conservative and Labour parties do private polling which we don't see.
Why should polls commissioned by the Liberal Democrats have to be published? Why would the Liberal Democrats, just like any other organisation, release into the public domain information which would be disadvantageous?
If a private Conservative Party poll showed a poor result, should that be published as well?
The argument is
(1) they have published favourable ones in the past
(2) these have not been published
(3) therefore they are not favourable
I forget which logical fallacy this is, but I’m pretty sure it’s a classic
The real confirmation of where they're behind will be when they publish a new set of marginals polls, also showing them ahead, but with the pollster mysteriously switched to ComRes.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
But you have a choice to move! Go to a better provider once your contract expires. And if you did Virgin may knock some money off for you to stay.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
So I have the choice between multiple turds, great.
Why do you think that changing Virgin and BT's staff and management from private sector employees into civil servants is likely to resolve your concerns over customer service?
It'll get worse as Johnny Mc cuts all the managements pay and they all leave.
Let’s compare it to the high quality, customer focussed, service we get from receptionists on GP surgeries. Oh, wait......
"lining the pockets of institutional shareholders" = lining the pockets of pension funds to pay people's pensions.
Again, I'm 28, you think my generation think we'll be allowed to retire? Oh geez, the generation gap is so real...
If you work you have a pension.
I have a pension plan, sure. Do I believe that pension age isn't going to increase to an age where I'm more likely to die than be able to use my pension? No. Do I believe that catastrophic climate change will change the face of the planet making my "golden years" anything but peaceful? Yes. Do I think capitalism will have resolved its internal contradictions and not be in crisis in the next 50 years? Hell no...
The answer to that isn't the re-introduction of Soviet style communism.I'm not that much older than you but I'm old enough to remember the old Soviet block.
If you want to see the implications of ideologically ridding a society of capitalism spend some time looking at your history.
If you can't be bothered a clue is this: It didn't work.
I mean, I accept the USSR didn't work, but I also don't believe that capitalism is "working" either. Deaths under communism are attributed, some rightly some wrongly, to that ideology. Deaths under capitalism are almost never attributed to the ideology. Capitalism does not seem to be able to solve the climate crisis, and seems to be the main cause of it.
I consider myself an eco socialist, more anarchist leaning. I don't necessarily trust big government, but I think big government and international cooperation will be necessary for certain things to tackle climate change, including infrastructure. I believe in very localised democratic decision making, like the model seen within Rojava. Do I think that is Corbynism? No, which is why I am not a Labour voter or member. But Corbynism is closer to it than the unfettered market capitalism of the Tories.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
Right, this. Have these people never read a consumer champion column? It took ten months and the Energy Ombudsman before Scottish Power could fix the data in their database to allow me to switch provider. At least if it was run by the state I'd be able to complain to my MP and vote against them.
Arguing on the basis of customer service provided by the privatised utilities is not a way to win this debate.
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?
You nasty man, lol!
But it never fails to surprise me that so many supposedly radical leftwing people think US advertising multinationals with their international speech-policing structures are a suitable conduit for critical thought and even for organising critical actions.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
Right, this. Have these people never read a consumer champion column? It took ten months and the Energy Ombudsman before Scottish Power could fix the data in their database to allow me to switch provider. At least if it was run by the state I'd be able to complain to my MP and vote against them.
Arguing on the basis of customer service provided by the privatised utilities is not a way to win this debate.
That sounds awful and it’s one example, but for most of us it now takes about a week and we can make major savings. As it happens I think electricity should be nationalised, but not for customer service reasons. Same with water and gas. But broadband is mad, because we’re just hitting the point of having a truly competitive market; and we pay a lot less for this stuff that most others do.
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.
Businesses can pay for it themselves
There are lots of things the public sector provide which businesses could pay for themselves but contribute to payment via tax. The obvious example is the road network which most businesses are totally reliant upon and the education in school and university of the employees.
I agree broadband is more debatable, but the case that all business and individuals should in 2020 have access to fast and reliable internet, and the state enabling this is at least a valid opinion.
Conservative 892 LibDem 691 Brexit Party 168 Labour 71 Green 35
Swing LibDem to Con: 8.7% (This ward is part Torbay constituency, part Totnes)
Note: there will be no Green or Brexit candidates in Totnes.
The Labour vote is now 1/20th of the combined Tory/Libdem vote
Looks like your "knocking up" is proving to be accurate. Why do you think that is? What kind of ward is this?
This is an area of suburban Paignton, along the by-pass, looking out at the Sainsbury's and the McDonalds and the Aldi stores, backing on to the zoo. Not remotely flash, some degree of social housing, not many top end properties at all. More working people here perhaps, than some of the areas in Totnes I have been canvassing - but most of those voting yesterday whilst I was a teller were not young....
Worth noting that if you give the Tories say 2/3 of the Brexit Party vote (+100) and the LibDems all the Greens (+35), it looks a worse outcome at the general for the LibDems.
I do wonder if the LibDems might pull their support for Totnes and put the effort into North Devon/North Carnwall instead?
It's interesting that he has a CAR15. If all he'd had was an SA80 he wouldn't have left his hotel room.
LOL if it's good enough for the green army...
Having seen one fired left handed, the SA80 looked pretty lethal to me....
It was certainly lethal (for the user) if you were in a fight using one. Mine had persistent jamming after two or three rounds and eventually suffered a broken firing pin (we weren't issued spares). I threw it in the Shatt al-Arab and bought a black market M4 off some Sgt Bilko type USN corpsman.
SA80: designed by the incompetent and issued by the uncaring to the unfortunate.
Some posters seem to be conflating the problems of the era of nationalisation (60s/70s) with nationalisation itself. I would not wish to defend nationalisation but the problems existed in the private sector as well. Having been brought up in Northfield (near the Longbridge car works) in the 60s and early 70s I recall the problems there (and it was not nationalised until 1975). Family members and neighbours who worked there (and everyone in the area knew people at Longbridge) were terrified of a union regime which seemed bent on destroying the plant and enforced its power in a way reminiscent of US films about unions (from shunning to actual beatings).
The problem of those times was more about industrial culture and the face off between unions and management, than about the private v public sector.
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.
.
Why is that a shame? This isn't an independence referendum, it's a council election followed by a Westminster election. Scottish Tories who vote Labour and vice versa are idiots.
I'm starting to fear for Boris. There's something about his campaign, so far, that doesn't feel right. Labour have seized the discussion with their Broadband goodies, and Boris is bogged down with 'The Wheels on the Bus' for heaven's sake. My worry is that the electorate will give him the Theresa treatment just for sh*ts and giggles.
Yup, we're several pages into a defacto broadband thread with all kinds of usually on-message Tory tub-thumpers and nobody has yet mentioned that Labour are going to pay for their thing by taxing cat pictures. The lights are on but noone's home.
I don't like the broadband policy but taxing cat pictures is a winner for me.
But not with people who like cat pictures I'd suggest.
"You are going to have to pay for every post, every share"
Chiming in with @tlg86 - water is the one to go for as i) It's needed by everyone ii) There is no choice in provider anyway.
and iii) the privatisation of water was a disaster with companies making huge profits but not updating their infrastructure until the government intervened.
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?
Via instant messaging then. Whatever.
I mean, that you think this isn't a semi typical experience in the wonderful market oriented world we currently inhabit is wild to me.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
Right, this. Have these people never read a consumer champion column? It took ten months and the Energy Ombudsman before Scottish Power could fix the data in their database to allow me to switch provider. At least if it was run by the state I'd be able to complain to my MP and vote against them.
Arguing on the basis of customer service provided by the privatised utilities is not a way to win this debate.
Ha ha - good luck with that making the slightest bit of difference!
Twitter direct message seems to be the latest favoured method of communication with a private firm..
Most utilities/services have live chat on their website. I honestly think it is the best way of communicating with such businesses. It is very easy to use some simple questions at first to direct you to an appropriate agent, and it has one big advantage over the phone in that if you need to give any kind of information you can do so far more easily in writing than by reading it out. Most of them also send you the transcript after your conversation is completed.
Some posters seem to be conflating the problems of the era of nationalisation (60s/70s) with nationalisation itself. I would not wish to defend nationalisation but the problems existed in the private sector as well. Having been brought up in Northfield (near the Longbridge car works) in the 60s and early 70s I recall the problems there (and it was not nationalised until 1975). Family members and neighbours who worked there (and everyone in the area knew people at Longbridge) were terrified of a union regime which seemed bent on destroying the plant and enforced its power in a way reminiscent of US films about unions (from shunning to actual beatings).
The problem of those times was more about industrial culture and the face off between unions and management, than about the private v public sector.
You didn't need to live near there to know about Red Robbo's antics, and Fred Kite was an accurate caricature of union attitudes in "I'm alright Jack".
It's interesting that he has a CAR15. If all he'd had was an SA80 he wouldn't have left his hotel room.
LOL if it's good enough for the green army...
Having seen one fired left handed, the SA80 looked pretty lethal to me....
It was certainly lethal (for the user) if you were in a fight using one. Mine had persistent jamming after two or three rounds and eventually suffered a broken firing pin (we weren't issued spares). I threw it in the Shatt al-Arab and bought a black market M4 off some Sgt Bilko type USN corpsman.
SA80: designed by the incompetent and issued by the uncaring to the unfortunate.
It’s the real cost of insisting on developing your own rifle when ideal products already exist. We owe it to the military to give them quality equipment, even (or perhaps especially) when it’s politically difficult.
I mean, I accept the USSR didn't work, but I also don't believe that capitalism is "working" either. Deaths under communism are attributed, some rightly some wrongly, to that ideology. Deaths under capitalism are almost never attributed to the ideology. Capitalism does not seem to be able to solve the climate crisis, and seems to be the main cause of it.
I consider myself an eco socialist, more anarchist leaning. I don't necessarily trust big government, but I think big government and international cooperation will be necessary for certain things to tackle climate change, including infrastructure. I believe in very localised democratic decision making, like the model seen within Rojava. Do I think that is Corbynism? No, which is why I am not a Labour voter or member. But Corbynism is closer to it than the unfettered market capitalism of the Tories.
Several points here:
1. The capitalist system IS quite often blamed for deaths - e.g. where someone doesn't get medical treatment because they are uninsured.
2. Not all deaths under communism are attributed to communism (we will all die one day) but to say "rightly or wrongly" suggests you've just not read the histories. Mass starvations in command economies have been relatively common, sometimes at the whim of despotic leaders, but very often because planners got it horribly wrong.
3. Whilst I agree the drive to produce and consume more and more has been a major contributor to climate change, I think you make a big mistake by thinking that is specific to capitalism, or even that capitalist systems are worse on that. Communist systems don't reject the idea of responding to consumer/public demands, they just do it through a planned economy. That does often mean extremely polluting factories, power plants and so on. Indeed, many advances in fuel efficiency come from the profit motive in capitalist societies - reducing fuel consumption saves costs and gives you a jump on your rivals. Ditching that completely in favour of Government led initiatives is likely to do the opposite of what I'm sure you sincerely want - you probably need a mix of private and public.
I'm starting to fear for Boris. There's something about his campaign, so far, that doesn't feel right. Labour have seized the discussion with their Broadband goodies, and Boris is bogged down with 'The Wheels on the Bus' for heaven's sake. My worry is that the electorate will give him the Theresa treatment just for sh*ts and giggles.
Yup, we're several pages into a defacto broadband thread with all kinds of usually on-message Tory tub-thumpers and nobody has yet mentioned that Labour are going to pay for their thing by taxing cat pictures. The lights are on but noone's home.
I don't like the broadband policy but taxing cat pictures is a winner for me.
But not with people who like cat pictures I'd suggest.
"You are going to have to pay for every post, every share"
"Fuck that!"
Do you remember when Bob Crow wanted to tax email, and SMS, to pay for the deficit?
There are numerous places without connections to a sewage system, using a septic tank instead. Mains water I will give you.
Lots of houses near where I live, just 50 miles from London and a couple of miles from a small town, don't have mains water, they have to rely on boreholes. It's quite extraordinary that there is no universal service provision for water.
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
Yes and I see another one as well......... Dunfermline Central by-election result:
SNP 33.2% (+3.4) Conservatives 24.8% (+0.7) Liberal Democrats 22.8% (+15.9) Labour 13.5% (-13.1) Greens 5.1% (+1.9) Libertarians 0.6% (n/a)
Rosyth by-election result:
SNP 42.8% (+6.3) Conservatives 24.4% (+2.1) Labour 15.2% (-3.1) Liberal Democrats 7.9% (+0.5) Independent 5.0% Greens 4.2% (+1.3) Libertarians 0.5% (n/a)
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.
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.
I read somewhere-HYUFD I think -that the by elections produced an almighty swing to the Tories. Anyone know where it is?
Some tactical voting pointers from last night's Scottish by-elections - Lab vote transfers seem to be splitting roughly 60/40 LDem/SNP. Transfers to Con are minimal, in the c. 5% range
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
In Torbay the Lib Dems lead the council, in Tunbridge Wells it is the Conservatives.
Comments
Conservative 892
LibDem 691
Brexit Party 168
Labour 71
Green 35
Swing LibDem to Con: 8.7% (This ward is part Torbay constituency, part Totnes)
Note: there will be no Green or Brexit candidates in Totnes.
The Labour vote is now 1/20th of the combined Tory/Libdem vote
We have all the money in the world! We can print as much as we wish!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxiy7l5b_4
Labour will destroy the economy and some of you still witter on about Brexit
Stop Labour - nothing else is as important.
I think last time I asked Virgin for something they said I would be contacted about my issue within 15 working days, and after a wait slightly longer then that they said someone would be sent out within 10 working days.
"Hard working families" so beloved of the Conservative Party are the ones facing the large energy bills and the annual increases in fares. There needs to be a balance between the consumer and the provider and the Government should be more on the side of the consumer (the current governing Party has always been on the side of the provider).
The provision of public services can't be solely about private profit - the margins to which these privatised companies operate need to be as low as possible.
Yes - again they are protecting their corporate image by punsihing you with no punishment for Sky (who deserved to be punished).
However if you list the possible benefits.
More people can work from home.
Businesses who previously were concerned might be willing to set up out of major towns , more jobs for the local economy .
Good for overall productivity.
More people working from home equals less car journeys , better for the environment.
The policy by itself I don’t think is a major winner unless the public understand the benefits .
BT £19bn
National Grid £31bn
United Utilities £6bn
Severn Trent £5bn
Pennon £4bn
Energy distribution cos £?bn (unclear because largely foreign owned)
Smaller water cos ?bn
Rail companies ?bn (unclear because rail usually part of wider transport group)
Even the most optimistic analyst would set the bill well in excess of £100bn. But it is not the bill which is the problem. If that could be funded at current gilt rates it may be worthwhile. The problem is the huge additional bill caused by the knock on effect to gilt rates, and especially the cost of issuing new gilts for general government business and to refinance maturities. Not a single politician has admitted this cost.
Without choice you have no leverage - for anything!
If it is a customer service problem, quite apart from the fact satisfaction surveys don't show the concern as being that widely shared, is it really going to be resolved by the engineers and call centre staff being classified as civil servants rather than public sector employees?
If it is a pure price problem, again there isn't a lot of evidence the view that value for money is poor is widely held, and you could address it in other, much less costly ways for the least well off in society (e.g. via changes to BT's universal service obligation).
If it is the issue for prices for longer term customers, there are simpler regulatory routes as you say. Although I've got to say that I've never really seen the big problem with price discrimination of this sort. You can't assist the lazy (or, more kindly, those who value their time too much to faff about shopping around) without punishing the thrifty. Some people are perfectly willing to pay for the convenience of not switching suppliers every five minutes (and not going to six shops to get the very best price on ketchup).
If the issue is the final few percent of rural broadband, then it isn't clear how buying up the network in Glasgow, London, Cardiff, and elsewhere where there is no shortage of private incentive to invest helps you out.
MM is a local canvasser with a good track record of providing quality insight. Where do you derive your understanding of this constituency?
i) It's needed by everyone
ii) There is no choice in provider anyway.
Young people all buy their own phones - they like competition there, diversity of pricing and services. They understand how it works. I don't see how broadband is very different. Martin Lewis has been educating the nation for 15 years on making these sort of systems work for the consumer. Would young people like to dump all that and replace it with a one size fits all policy, sharing the same product as the oldies who don't know how to use the Internets but check their email every week?
This broadband policy is terrible economically and I don't think it is good politically either. It opens the door to nationalisation across all sorts of areas where it just ain't going to be popular, for good reason.
Mr. Foremain, it's the worst choice there's been for a long time.
I'd add that once the incumbent PM goes the Conservatives might return to normal. That could be a lot more difficult for Labour to achieve.
You can say present day pensioners have an easy time compared with your generation, and I have some sympathy with that. But you almost certainly do have a pension fund which you will some day draw on, and that's what "institutional shareholders" are.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/14/only-china-has-scaled-manufacturing-leading-practices-for-rapid-low-carbon-transformation-part-4/
https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1195031524183363585
Sadly I don't live in Uxbridge so I can't vote for this candidate but will exchange my vote with someone who can.
However I do take issue with some of the other seats on the quoted LD gain list. The chances of gaining Montgomeryshire, as an example, seem remote to me. Finchley and Guildford seem much better prospects.
I wonder I the amount you pay or keeping the light on matches the amount your pension pot grows - suspect not. You could also ask about all the investment property owned by pension funds.
If you want to see the implications of ideologically ridding a society of capitalism spend some time looking at your history.
If you can't be bothered a clue is this: It didn't work.
(1) they have published favourable ones in the past
(2) these have not been published
(3) therefore they are not favourable
I forget which logical fallacy this is, but I’m pretty sure it’s a classic
Someone should tell Sid.
Good old free at the point of use, socialist, sorry, social media.
But you come up with ideas about how under nationalisation everyone was on a tea break or on strike, or how "choice" means the service must necessarily be better. Yes the nationalised services were crap, and nobody thinks they were a paradise, but in general they provided a damned sight better service than the crap we get now from the private sector.
In the old days at a railway station if you wanted a ticket to any station in the country the counter clerk would tell you the price within half a minute. Nowadays they are more likely to look at a monitor screen for a few minutes with their mouth open and then make a guess, and perhaps they will need your help as what to what the best guess is, given the various alternatives coming up. Or they'll say it's nothing to do with them and that you'll have to ask a different company.
And I haven't even started on bus services. Look what a sewer "choice" has thrown those services into.
I consider myself an eco socialist, more anarchist leaning. I don't necessarily trust big government, but I think big government and international cooperation will be necessary for certain things to tackle climate change, including infrastructure. I believe in very localised democratic decision making, like the model seen within Rojava. Do I think that is Corbynism? No, which is why I am not a Labour voter or member. But Corbynism is closer to it than the unfettered market capitalism of the Tories.
Arguing on the basis of customer service provided by the privatised utilities is not a way to win this debate.
But it never fails to surprise me that so many supposedly radical leftwing people think US advertising multinationals with their international speech-policing structures are a suitable conduit for critical thought and even for organising critical actions.
I agree broadband is more debatable, but the case that all business and individuals should in 2020 have access to fast and reliable internet, and the state enabling this is at least a valid opinion.
Worth noting that if you give the Tories say 2/3 of the Brexit Party vote (+100) and the LibDems all the Greens (+35), it looks a worse outcome at the general for the LibDems.
I do wonder if the LibDems might pull their support for Totnes and put the effort into North Devon/North Carnwall instead?
SA80: designed by the incompetent and issued by the uncaring to the unfortunate.
The problem of those times was more about industrial culture and the face off between unions and management, than about the private v public sector.
"You are going to have to pay for every post, every share"
"Fuck that!"
iii) the privatisation of water was a disaster with companies making huge profits but not updating their infrastructure until the government intervened.
This Thread Has Been Disconnected
1. The capitalist system IS quite often blamed for deaths - e.g. where someone doesn't get medical treatment because they are uninsured.
2. Not all deaths under communism are attributed to communism (we will all die one day) but to say "rightly or wrongly" suggests you've just not read the histories. Mass starvations in command economies have been relatively common, sometimes at the whim of despotic leaders, but very often because planners got it horribly wrong.
3. Whilst I agree the drive to produce and consume more and more has been a major contributor to climate change, I think you make a big mistake by thinking that is specific to capitalism, or even that capitalist systems are worse on that. Communist systems don't reject the idea of responding to consumer/public demands, they just do it through a planned economy. That does often mean extremely polluting factories, power plants and so on. Indeed, many advances in fuel efficiency come from the profit motive in capitalist societies - reducing fuel consumption saves costs and gives you a jump on your rivals. Ditching that completely in favour of Government led initiatives is likely to do the opposite of what I'm sure you sincerely want - you probably need a mix of private and public.
Dunfermline Central by-election result:
SNP 33.2% (+3.4)
Conservatives 24.8% (+0.7)
Liberal Democrats 22.8% (+15.9)
Labour 13.5% (-13.1)
Greens 5.1% (+1.9)
Libertarians 0.6% (n/a)
Rosyth by-election result:
SNP 42.8% (+6.3)
Conservatives 24.4% (+2.1)
Labour 15.2% (-3.1)
Liberal Democrats 7.9% (+0.5)
Independent 5.0%
Greens 4.2% (+1.3)
Libertarians 0.5% (n/a)