I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
Could Theresa have got that from the EU if she'd have asked? Yes absolutely. So what's the big deal. Where's Boris's genius?
May didn't ask. Boris did.
May had the wrong priority.
May didn't ask because it's what the EU offered her originally. She turned it down because the DUP said no.
The deal is what May originally negotiated.
The only thing the EU offered was to have NI in the UK Customs Territory "in name only" but everyone knows it's just words.
This deal will unraval when it gets properly scrutinised.
No it is not what they originally offered. If you're hard of hearing we've already discussed 2 massive differences. Go re read the conversation if you haven't figured out what they are.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
There are valid comparators but the Greek defence is poor. They were destroyed by doing EU-imposed austerity in a debt deflation trap, while stuck in a currency union, not by socialism. It's more or less impossible for the Greek problem to happen to the UK. Argentina-type problem, in theory, could, but only if we started borrowing in foreign currencies to access lower interest rates if domestic inflation rose because of major net deficit spending and an inability for the economy to sustain the interest rates required to tame it.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
I thought the original EU proposal was NI stays in the EU customs union and leaves the UK one. With Boris deal NI is in both.
Indeed. Another big difference.
Also level playing field or regulatory alignment moved from WD to PD, another very large concession by the EU and military alignment has been reduced as well.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
There are valid comparators but the Greek defence poor. They were destroyed by doing EU-imposed austerity in a debt deflation trap, stuck in a currency union. It's more or less impossible for the Greek problem happen to the UK. Argentina-type problem, in theory, could.
Call me a leftie or whatever but I find it genuinally astonishing that people think Corbyn and Johnson are just as bad as each other.
Well not quite actually true. People think Corbyn is much, much worse than Johnson.
So increase your astonishment.
And I'd like to understand how this can be true.
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, lazy, mendacious, hypocritical, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
Have I missed anything?
"Laziness": only one out of Johnson and Corbyn has called someone a "girly swot" for wanting MPs to do some work in the month of September.
"Mendacity": only one of them has repeatedly been sacked by employers for dishonesty. Not very many people have that kind of record, but the present prime minister does.
"Hypocrisy": if Tories think free-at-the-point-of-use broadband is "communist", why not say the same about NHS maternity care? And if getting stuff for free is a bad idea, and if the rich are rich because they're intelligent, then why not raise IHT to 90% on larger estates?
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
I thought the original EU proposal was NI stays in the EU customs union and leaves the UK one. With Boris deal NI is in both.
Indeed. Another big difference.
Also level playing field or regulatory alignment moved from WD to PD, another very large concession by the EU and military alignment has been reduced as well.
It will unravel when it turns out it's not what people thought they were voting for - not that anyone actually knows.
I would be surprised if you could find 1 person in a hundred on the High St who properly understands the deal...and that would include me.
Normal people take their cues from the media so when they see the ERG and Farage (sort of) falling in behind the deal they will assume it is a 'real' Brexit as opposed to whatever May was offering.
PB is brilliant for the forensic dissection of policy, polling and other 'nerdy' stuff.
Where perhaps we are not as good is viewing politics through the basic, broad brush eyes of a voter who only goes to the polling station once every few years.
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
As an aside, the timing of the announcement seemed slightly odd given it knocked the NHS off top billing. Labour should have waited a few days.
A few days ago people were saying that Labour didn't have any policies except on the NHS. They're not saying that now. Labour will want to be able to return to the NHS several times over the next twenty-six days without boring people with it.
Also, one of the features of the campaign that probably contributed to Labour's defeat at GE2015 was that they didn't have control of the narrative. They tried to keep the campaign focused on a single topic for too long, but the media get bored, and the Tories were very adept at changing the subject. This put Labour continually on the defensive.
By changing the subject themselves from the NHS they made sure that the next focus of the campaign was on something they wanted to talk about, rather than something the Tories wanted to talk about. It's left the Tories only reacting.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
The NI politicians are still saying they don't like it.
Then they can end the arrangements in Stormont if that's what a majority of NI voters and their politicians think. Job done.
So Boris's magnificent deal amounts to this: a hard border between NI and the Republic and the whole of the UK outside the customs union. What an achievement to pull that off - real ingenious stuff!
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
There are valid comparators but the Greek defence poor. They were destroyed by doing EU-imposed austerity in a debt deflation trap, stuck in a currency union. It's more or less impossible for the Greek problem happen to the UK. Argentina-type problem, in theory, could.
And one of the contributing factors to that severe austerity was because the national politicians of Greece had, for years, been trading off the strength of a common currency and spending beyond their means.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
There are valid comparators but the Greek defence poor. They were destroyed by doing EU-imposed austerity in a debt deflation trap, stuck in a currency union. It's more or less impossible for the Greek problem happen to the UK. Argentina-type problem, in theory, could.
And Venezuela was destroyed by US sanctions.
It always comes back to the USA for you loons. If you hate America so much you surely wouldn't want to trade with them anyway so sanctions wouldn't make a difference.
The Tories seem triumphant again, one month out that this is a done deal, massive Tory majority coming in.
This is the exact level of arrogance that undid May. At this point in 2017, May was still on for a huge majority and Corbyn was seen as useless.
I strongly disagree with that assessment. I've seen very few posters on here predict a "massive Tory majority." There has been a lot more uneasiness this time around.
FWIW, my current thinking is we are in the range of hung parliament to majority of 30 or so for the Tories. If the Tories do win a majority, I can't see it climbing much further than that.
My best guess at the moment - Tory majority of 10-15.
The briefings coming out are the Tories are confident of a large majority, the Sun and others are saying Corbyn is finished, etc.
It's not exactly the same as 2017 but there is arrogance around.
This election is all to play for. I won't make any certain predictions but I will say I was one of the few to call 2017 right and I got 4 to 1 on no overall majority.
I would be amazed if the polling doesn't show it is much closer in two weeks time.
I don't see a strong Labour campaign. If anything, the polling seems to be trending towards the Conservatives.
I see what you see, although Labour are making headline-grabbing offers with limited good Conservative news to knock them off the headlines.
So the question is, what's moving SPIN back Labour? My sell on Con>Lab supremacy is now in profit despite a house margin of 12.
Size of any majority has also once again (though just barely) decoupled by a seat from 'size of Conservative majority'. A non-Conservative majority of over 37 seems a little unlikely, though I guess the latter still banks a bigger win with a non-Con majority of anything.
Broadband is something a lot of people are paying for themselves. Obviously free stuff is good but it feels (a) more like a bribe and (b) people are struggling to understand why the governments should take on this responsibility
I'm a regular on a football forum (northern so predominantly Labour supporters) and the broadband proposal has been received more with mild amusement than anything else.
I did throw a hand grenade in there about government broadband only coming in one size, adult content being blocked, outages lasting weeks, traffic being monitored etc etc.
The Tories should be able to pick apart the proposal quite easily and the younger voters won't like it one bit when they hear the suggested realities.
As an aside, the timing of the announcement seemed slightly odd given it knocked the NHS off top billing. Labour should have waited a few days.
Free broadband seems like a policy sketched out on the back of a beermat but it does seem to have spooked CCHQ. The trouble with saying it should be left to the market is that many voters will be thinking the market has not done a very good job so far.
I am not suggesting that all is rosy in the broadband world but generally speaking its available for most and relatively inexpensive. Yes there are arguments about the rollout of fibre but and I'd quite happily admit that there are problems particularly in rural areas, and have been for yonks, but I don't think many people would list their broadband provision as one of their top concerns.
EDIT: besides, there's an argument that as mobile data becomes more and more advanced the wired internet service is going to become more and more obsolete.
Yes, in many areas, it might be easier to stick up a mast than run cable.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
Time will tell. Look I really don't much care who runs runs "Brexit Britain". Having never missed a vote I haven't voted for anything since the 2016 referendum and I doubt that will change in December.
However if I was one of those who is really expecting Brexit to deliver on its promises then Bozo is the last leader I would want in charge. I doubt he really even supports Brexit but it served to get him to where he wanted.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
The Tories seem triumphant again, one month out that this is a done deal, massive Tory majority coming in.
This is the exact level of arrogance that undid May. At this point in 2017, May was still on for a huge majority and Corbyn was seen as useless.
I strongly disagree with that assessment. I've seen very few posters on here predict a "massive Tory majority." There has been a lot more uneasiness this time around.
FWIW, my current thinking is we are in the range of hung parliament to majority of 30 or so for the Tories. If the Tories do win a majority, I can't see it climbing much further than that.
My best guess at the moment - Tory majority of 10-15.
The briefings coming out are the Tories are confident of a large majority, the Sun and others are saying Corbyn is finished, etc.
It's not exactly the same as 2017 but there is arrogance around.
This election is all to play for. I won't make any certain predictions but I will say I was one of the few to call 2017 right and I got 4 to 1 on no overall majority.
I would be amazed if the polling doesn't show it is much closer in two weeks time.
I don't see a strong Labour campaign. If anything, the polling seems to be trending towards the Conservatives.
I see what you see, although Labour are making headline-grabbing offers with limited good Conservative news to knock them off the headlines.
So the question is, what's moving SPIN back Labour? My sell on Con>Lab supremacy is now in profit despite a house margin of 12.
Size of any majority has also once again (though just barely) decoupled by a seat from 'size of Conservative majority'. A non-Conservative majority of over 37 seems a little unlikely, though I guess the latter still banks a bigger win with a non-Con majority of anything.
I've now closed down my LAB seats sell bet taking a nice profit.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
The NI politicians are still saying they don't like it.
Then they can end the arrangements in Stormont if that's what a majority of NI voters and their politicians think. Job done.
So Boris's magnificent deal amounts to this: a hard border between NI and the Republic and the whole of the UK outside the customs union. What an achievement to pull that off - real ingenious stuff!
If that is what NI politicians choose then yes. Their choice. Oh and it quite reasonably gives 2 years to negotiate new arrangements with the backstop and A50 not an issue anymore. Win, win.
I didn't say it wasn't different from May's deal I said it was no different from the deal the EU had put on the table 18 months earlier and which Johnson had opposed at the time.
t was in no real sense a "new" deal that he had negotiated. He just lied about never accepting a border in the Irish sea when he opposed it first time around
Did the original deal have a unilateral Stormont exit? Yes or no?
If no this is not the same deal.
I said that in no real sense was in a "new" deal. Do you really think Johnson was aware of that detail? Even now he doesn't appear to understand his own deal as we saw last week.
Does the deal create a border in the Irish sea and did Johnson say that no PM would do that? The problem is we have become so inured to Johnson lying that. like Trump, nobody is shocked by it anymore
Considering he negotiated the consent mechanism and the delays leading up to it had much talk about the consent mechanism being negotiated then yes I do think he was aware of that.
The original proposal was for special arrangements for NI de jure which NI politicians said they didn't like and British ones said they didn't like. So May's response was to extend the special arrangements to the whole of the UK proclaiming no border like it was a triumph.
Boris took the special arrangements said there can't de jure be a border but there can de facto be one with the consent of the devolved administration.
Boris deal is a far smarter and far more democratic solution.
The NI politicians are still saying they don't like it.
Then they can end the arrangements in Stormont if that's what a majority of NI voters and their politicians think. Job done.
So Boris's magnificent deal amounts to this: a hard border between NI and the Republic and the whole of the UK outside the customs union. What an achievement to pull that off - real ingenious stuff!
If that is what NI politicians choose then yes. Their choice. Oh and it quite reasonably gives 2 years to negotiate new arrangements with the backstop and A50 not an issue anymore. Win, win.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true that the sustained success of Chelsea and Man City has very much required the money. I guess it’s also true to some extent for Leicester but I’d say their player recruitment was and is exceptional. And getting Rodgers was a master stroke.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true that the sustained success of Chelsea and Man City has very much required the money. I guess it’s also true to some extent for Leicester but I’d say their player recruitment was and is exceptional. And getting Rodgers was a master stroke.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
Asset stripping has gone across a lot of small clubs in some form or another. It is criminal and I have more sympathy with the idea of fan ownership of League One / Two / Conference Clubs.
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
I don't know whether this has been posted elsewhere; only just looked at todays Guardian website, due to other interesting things happening at home. However it appears that information has come to light that 'Home secretary Priti Patel, (together with Ben Wallace and Said Javid) intervened to block a recent rescue operation to bring British orphans and unaccompanied minors home from Syria, sources have revealed.' The report doesn't specify the ages of the children, but I wouldn't have thought they were very old; I would have thought probably primary school age. On humanitarian grounds surely children of that age should be brought back, never mind what the parents may or may not have done.
Forget floods, fires, and free internet...could this be a big problem for the Tories?
Met detectives investigate electoral fraud allegations after claims Tories 'induced Brexit Party candidates to stand down' as Ann Widdecombe says she will 'swear on the Bible' she was offered top job
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
In addition to the impact of lack of market forces on ISP provision, there are also scary impacts of a single state owned provider.
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
You talked about demand for services and how there are different ones available. For the majority of the country, that is not the case.
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
You talked about demand for services and how there are different ones available. For the majority of the country, that is not the case.
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
No...I said there is demand and need for different ISP services. I clearly stated that had no issue with state planning to ensure the infrastructure is there to provide this i.e like South Korea.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
You talked about demand for services and how there are different ones available. For the majority of the country, that is not the case.
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
No...I said there is demand and need for different ISP services. I clearly stated that had no issue with state planning to ensure the infrastructure is there to provide this i.e like South Korea.
But what you are saying is not what is being proposed by anyone in this country, certainly not the Tories.
The Labour plan sounds a lot better than what the Tories want to do (didn't they scrap it?).
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Will they reproduce the ones where they gloried in the drowning of Argentinian conscripts or defamed the dead at Hillsborough? Those were classics of the genre.
No just as Renault cars aren't Communist despite being part owned by the French Government.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
You talked about demand for services and how there are different ones available. For the majority of the country, that is not the case.
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
No...I said there is demand and need for different ISP services. I clearly stated that had no issue with state planning to ensure the infrastructure is there to provide this i.e like South Korea.
But what you are saying is not what is being proposed by anyone in this country, certainly not the Tories.
The Labour plan sounds a lot better than what the Tories want to do (didn't they scrap it?).
It happening now...it should have happened faster, but it is happening. Could the government do more, yes. Do we need to eliminate 200 ISPs that provide different services, no.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true that the sustained success of Chelsea and Man City has very much required the money. I guess it’s also true to some extent for Leicester but I’d say their player recruitment was and is exceptional. And getting Rodgers was a master stroke.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
Asset stripping has gone across a lot of small clubs in some form or another. It is criminal and I have more sympathy with the idea of fan ownership of League One / Two / Conference Clubs.
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
Yes, that’s the key point. If we were starting from scratch it might be worth having a US style European super league with college style youth leagues in individual countries acting as feeder leagues.
But everyone seems to hate the idea of a franchise system with checks and balances on the most successful clubs. Everyone gets bleary eyed for Wimbledon, but clubs going bust and falling out of the league is the flip side.
Yes, that’s the key point. If we were starting from scratch it might be worth having a US style European super league with college style youth leagues in individual countries acting as feeder leagues.
But everyone seems to hate the idea of a franchise system with checks and balances on the most successful clubs. Everyone gets bleary eyed for Wimbledon, but clubs going bust and falling out of the league is the flip side.
With an NFL style Red Zone coverage of the 3pm kick-offs :-)
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I don't think the average voter understands the intracies of it. The headline policy is what will be popular.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
As you well know, the "Commie" bit of it is that the state are going to become the sole provider of consumer internet and it will be a one size fits all deal.
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
Whichever ISP I go with, my line and speed is the same. I have no Virgin, I have no Hyperoptic, 4G is useless and slow and 5G will probably never come here.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
What's that got to do with what I stated. Nothing.
You talked about demand for services and how there are different ones available. For the majority of the country, that is not the case.
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
No...I said there is demand and need for different ISP services. I clearly stated that had no issue with state planning to ensure the infrastructure is there to provide this i.e like South Korea.
Quite. The models of utilities that are successful have a single, either state-owned or preferably a well-regulated private company, in charge of the physical infrastructure, while numerous other private companies compete to offer services using that infrastructure.
It’s also reasons for government to invest directly where there would otherwise be a market failure, say to run fibre cable to the last 5% of homes without it.
None of the above means we need to go back to the BT of the ‘70s and ‘80s, where you wait three months for your standard 16mb line at £300 a month, and you’d be better be damn grateful that they deign to serve you - which is what Labour are proposing.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I don't think the average voter understands the intracies of it. The headline policy is what will be popular.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
I think it will cut through very well myself.
Again, where have I ever said it won't be popular. I just said it is a terrible policy.
Also, broadband isn't crap in most towns and cities. It is actually very good. Again it isn't South Korea good, but it is good and relatively cheap.
It happening now...it should have happened faster, but it is happening. Could the government do more, yes. Do we need to eliminate 200 ISPs that provide different services, no.
What is happening now? There's been no announcement by the Tories about funding FTTP for all.
We're going to end up funding it, whether through BT or not. FTTC coverage was not provided via private sector investment, it was overwhelmingly via Government subsidy.
* two weeks debating popular and sensible and in some cases surprise policies from Labour (surprise gets attention), doubtless with more "gaffs" from Boris Johnson such as not knowing how to make a cup of tea, not knowing how to show compassion for flood victims, not wanting to say how many children he's got, etc.,
* followed by two weeks of "if you want a Romanian for your neighbour" from Tories and from the voter suppression operation called the Brexit "Party".
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I don't think the average voter understands the intracies of it. The headline policy is what will be popular.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
I think it will cut through very well myself.
Again, where have I ever said it won't be popular. I just said it is a terrible policy.
Also, broadband isn't crap in most towns and cities. It is actually very good. Again it isn't South Korea good, but it is good and relatively cheap.
I'm a bit bemused what your point is then.
I think most people accept we need FTTP. The private sector isn't going to finance it, the Government will have to.
Do you think we should continue the BDUK approach where we just hand BT money?
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
Good attacking football, €10 tickets, safe standing and a consistently strong national team.
What's not to like for a fan that actually goes to matches?
A totally uncompetitive league. Not much fun as a fan. See Celtic winning every year in Scotland, nobody is excited by that.
I have never been anywhere else in the world where people are desperately seeking to watch the Bundesliga matches week in week out in the way they do for the EPL.
It is also the reason the likes of the NFL is a mega hit both in the US and now here. The league is so competitive, and it results in so many of the games being extremely closed matched.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d drop their central policy of opposition to implementing democratic votes because the people gave the wrong answer, then I might even have considered voting for them.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I think the trouble is that most people associate nationalisation first and foremost with lower prices for them.
Most people are in favour of rail nationalisation because they think it will mean cheaper train tickets. They are less interested in investment in infrastructure, maintenence, service quality etc. All they see is the greedy capitalist profiteering.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true that the sustained success of Chelsea and Man City has very much required the money. I guess it’s also true to some extent for Leicester but I’d say their player recruitment was and is exceptional. And getting Rodgers was a master stroke.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
Asset stripping has gone across a lot of small clubs in some form or another. It is criminal and I have more sympathy with the idea of fan ownership of League One / Two / Conference Clubs.
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
Fake news. The Leicester City that won the League cost about £30 million, with several key players on a free.
Leicester have only spent 1 season outside the top 2 divisions since formation.
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Will they reproduce the ones where they gloried in the drowning of Argentinian conscripts
Argentina had already invaded the Falklands and South Georgia by then.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I don't think the average voter understands the intracies of it. The headline policy is what will be popular.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
I think it will cut through very well myself.
Again, where have I ever said it won't be popular. I just said it is a terrible policy.
Also, broadband isn't crap in most towns and cities. It is actually very good. Again it isn't South Korea good, but it is good and relatively cheap.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d drop their central policy of opposition to implementing democratic votes because the people gave the wrong answer, then I might even have considered voting for them.
It simply wasn't a detailed enough answer as we've found out. May, Johnson, the DUP and the ERG all have different interpretations. We need more detail and should ask for it in a referendum.
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Will they reproduce the ones where they gloried in the drowning of Argentinian conscripts or defamed the dead at Hillsborough? Those were classics of the genre.
People die in wars. Argentine combatants were legitimate targets.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true that the sustained success of Chelsea and Man City has very much required the money. I guess it’s also true to some extent for Leicester but I’d say their player recruitment was and is exceptional. And getting Rodgers was a master stroke.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
Asset stripping has gone across a lot of small clubs in some form or another. It is criminal and I have more sympathy with the idea of fan ownership of League One / Two / Conference Clubs.
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
Fake news. The Leicester City that won the League cost about £30 million, with several key players on a free.
Leicester have only spent 1 season outside the top 2 divisions since formation.
And the £120m a year on wages. I believe Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha put £200 million of his own money into Leicester City.
My point was fan owned clubs in the lower leagues would never be able to find that kind of money.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I think the trouble is that most people associate nationalisation first and foremost with lower prices for them.
Most people are in favour of rail nationalisation because they think it will mean cheaper train tickets. They are less interested in investment in infrastructure, maintenence, service quality etc. All they see is the greedy capitalist profiteering.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
There are valid comparators but the Greek defence poor. They were destroyed by doing EU-imposed austerity in a debt deflation trap, stuck in a currency union. It's more or less impossible for the Greek problem happen to the UK. Argentina-type problem, in theory, could.
And Venezuela was destroyed by US sanctions.
It always comes back to the USA for you loons. If you hate America so much you surely wouldn't want to trade with them anyway so sanctions wouldn't make a difference.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
We used to be owned by a Geordie, played exciting football and nearly won stuff.
Now we are owned by a Cockney, try to grind out results and have an annual battle against relegation.
Call me a leftie or whatever but I find it genuinally astonishing that people think Corbyn and Johnson are just as bad as each other.
Well not quite actually true. People think Corbyn is much, much worse than Johnson.
So increase your astonishment.
And I'd like to understand how this can be true.
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, lazy, mendacious, hypocritical, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
Have I missed anything?
"Laziness": only one out of Johnson and Corbyn has called someone a "girly swot" for wanting MPs to do some work in the month of September.
"Mendacity": only one of them has repeatedly been sacked by employers for dishonesty. Not very many people have that kind of record, but the present prime minister does.
"Hypocrisy": if Tories think free-at-the-point-of-use broadband is "communist", why not say the same about NHS maternity care? And if getting stuff for free is a bad idea, and if the rich are rich because they're intelligent, then why not raise IHT to 90% on larger estates?
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
Wow. Living proof that some people really do swallow every particle of drivel that they read in the tabloids!
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d drop their central policy of opposition to implementing democratic votes because the people gave the wrong answer, then I might even have considered voting for them.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority in Parliament, revoking A50 would be highly democratic, as there would clearly have been a sea change against Brexit. If it is a hung parliament there would be a democratic vote on a specific Brexit deal, also highly democratic.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I don't think the average voter understands the intracies of it. The headline policy is what will be popular.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
I think it will cut through very well myself.
Again, where have I ever said it won't be popular. I just said it is a terrible policy.
Also, broadband isn't crap in most towns and cities. It is actually very good. Again it isn't South Korea good, but it is good and relatively cheap.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
We used to be owned by a Geordie, played exciting football and nearly won stuff.
Now we are owned by a Cockney, try to grind out results and have an annual battle against relegation.
I've lost interest.
I don't blame you. No fan of Ashley. As I say, the fan demand more investment in the team and he doesn't provide it in the way other EPL owners do.
The Chile situation is very strange. Only a few weeks ago I was reading articles about how it was the most prosperous country in South and Central America, and how it was more socially developed and stable than any other country in that area.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d drop their central policy of opposition to implementing democratic votes because the people gave the wrong answer, then I might even have considered voting for them.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority in Parliament, revoking A50 would be highly democratic, as there would clearly have been a sea change against Brexit. If it is a hung parliament there would be a democratic vote on a specific Brexit deal, also highly democratic.
But they’ve zero chance of my vote with that policy. They can argue for EU membership once we have actually left.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as government debt, and spending more than £40bn a year servicing it even with interest rates on the floor, is a massive weight around the neck of the future of the economy.
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally predicted that any country that breached 80% would fall into a blackhole. We're still here.
Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Considering how bankrupt the country was "not improved" is a mammoth achievement while eliminating Labour's deficit
Go to Venezuela, Bolivia or even Greece and see how much life has gotten worse when Corbynite or Corbyn lite policies have been followed.
Corbyn-lite policies? You mean like a fuck-business economic policy, uncosted and wildly implausible financial promises, and a proven track record of lying? That sort of thing?
Call me a leftie or whatever but I find it genuinally astonishing that people think Corbyn and Johnson are just as bad as each other.
Well not quite actually true. People think Corbyn is much, much worse than Johnson.
So increase your astonishment.
And I'd like to understand how this can be true.
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, lazy, mendacious, hypocritical, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
Have I missed anything?
"Laziness": only one out of Johnson and Corbyn has called someone a "girly swot" for wanting MPs to do some work in the month of September.
"Mendacity": only one of them has repeatedly been sacked by employers for dishonesty. Not very many people have that kind of record, but the present prime minister does.
"Hypocrisy": if Tories think free-at-the-point-of-use broadband is "communist", why not say the same about NHS maternity care? And if getting stuff for free is a bad idea, and if the rich are rich because they're intelligent, then why not raise IHT to 90% on larger estates?
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
Wow. Living proof that some people really do swallow every particle of drivel that they read in the tabloids!
So what is untrue about anything he said? Corbyn is all those things and a lot more. You can't keep blaming all these tin foil hat conspiracy theories regarding 'right wing press smears'. Even the Guardian's turning against him.
OT rush out now and bag a copy of the Sun for its 50 greatest front pages souvenir magazine, including these political ones.
Crisis? What crisis? Up Yours Delors It's Paddy Pantsdown If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet Is this the most dangerous man in Britain? This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Will they reproduce the ones where they gloried in the drowning of Argentinian conscripts or defamed the dead at Hillsborough? Those were classics of the genre.
People die in wars. Argentine combatants were legitimate targets.
Indeed. The objective of warfare is to kill as many of the enemy as possible until they stop.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d drop their central policy of opposition to implementing democratic votes because the people gave the wrong answer, then I might even have considered voting for them.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority in Parliament, revoking A50 would be highly democratic, as there would clearly have been a sea change against Brexit. If it is a hung parliament there would be a democratic vote on a specific Brexit deal, also highly democratic.
If the LDs revoke without a referendum citing their election as democratic assent, what prevents the Tories from taking us out without a referendum next time they get in?
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
It’s certainly true
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
Asset stripp
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
Fake news. The Leicester City that won the League cost about £30 million, with several key players on a free.
Leicester have only spent 1 season outside the top 2 divisions since formation.
And the £120m a year on wages. I believe Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha put £200 million of his own money into Leicester City.
My point was fan owned clubs in the lower leagues would never be able to find that kind of money.
The money comes from fans, either via tickets, merchandise or TV subscriptions. The net inflow from billionaire owners is minimal in comparison. Some like the Glazers have fleeced their clubs via debt.
Khun Vichai put money into Leicester, but most was to buy back the stadium after a previous owner sold it. FFP rules mean that net inflows of money are modest.
Roads ~ broadband ~ hospital treatment. Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
The fact that we are still talking about broadband internet days after the announcement shows how much cut-through it has achieved.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
But on the internet, nationalizing OpenReach wasn't very popular. It was only the offer of free internet that was, not the method by which it would be achieved.
I think the trouble is that most people associate nationalisation first and foremost with lower prices for them.
Most people are in favour of rail nationalisation because they think it will mean cheaper train tickets. They are less interested in investment in infrastructure, maintenence, service quality etc. All they see is the greedy capitalist profiteering.
Just wait till the media start putting labour nationalization plans together with their 70’s style union rights!
I agree that nationalising vast swathes of the economy will be an absolute disaster. The question is, will enough people think it is a good idea to deny the Tories a majority again?
I'm less interested in what the media have to say about it and more interested in what ordinary people on social media are saying about it. And from what I can tell there it seems pretty popular.
Nationalising stuff has a simple appeal to simple minds, and I suspect that is where the battle is won, not in the newspapers. Momentum has an excellent digital/social operation. The Tories, less so.
If the LDs revoke without a referendum citing their election as democratic assent, what prevents the Tories from taking us out without a referendum next time they get in?
Indeed. The EU won't see our intention to stay as settled if we revoke like that.
The Chile situation is very strange. Only a few weeks ago I was reading articles about how it was the most prosperous country in South and Central America, and how it was more socially developed and stable than any other country in that area.
It is the polar opposite to Venezuela. Endemic economic injustice, bug driven by capitalism rather than socialism.
So Jezza is an admirer of the Bundesliga. A league which is won by the same team every season.
And the season is usually decided by February.
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
La Liga are embarrassing themselves with the nonsense over the game in Miami.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
It is just an absolute massive success. And yes fans get annoyed at owners, but it is normally because they aren't putting enough money in e.g. Newcastle fans are pissed because Ashley doesn't put enough into the club. You think a fan owned group could find £100 million every season?
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
We used to be owned by a Geordie, played exciting football and nearly won stuff.
Now we are owned by a Cockney, try to grind out results and have an annual battle against relegation.
Wow, nearly a sensible policy there from someone. Shame it’s from the party who disagree with democracy when they don’t like the result, otherwise I might have considered voting for them.
You think the government taking more and more money out of the economy so they can do nothing with it except accrue it, forever, is sensible?
I think that carrying 88% of GDP as
The next recession is going to be awful if the last one still hasn’t been recovered from, we should be running a vast surplus at this stage of the economic cycle, no matter how politically difficult that may be.
It was originally Neoliberal economics is a lie and doesn't work.
It’s only a frantic amount of money printing and a decade of almost-zero interest rates that have kept the economy from collapsing.
If that’s how socialism-lite under Brown can go, imagine what happens if we go for the full-fat Corbyn version?
Have you lived in the UK for the last 9 years? Life hasn't improved for regular people at all.
Go out into the real world and witness the increase in homeless people or people sleeping rough. Tell me it's worth it then.
Maybe if we weren’t paying £40bn a year in interest to the evil bankers who lent the almost bankrupt government money, there would be more to go around for everybody else?
Government spending has gone *up* every year since 2010, the only difference is that more and more of it is being paid in debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals.
Yep. The LDs are the only party for financial sanity. Ed Davey would be a great CoE.
I don’t disagree with the LDs being of sound finances, as I said earlier if they’d
In the unlikely event of a LD majority in Parliament, revoking A50 would be highly democratic, as there would clearly have been a sea change against Brexit. If it is a hung parliament there would be a democratic vote on a specific Brexit deal, also highly democratic.
If the LDs revoke without a referendum citing their election as democratic assent, what prevents the Tories from taking us out without a referendum next time they get in?
Proportional Representation would be the second act of a LD government
Call me a leftie or whatever but I find it genuinally astonishing that people think Corbyn and Johnson are just as bad as each other.
Well not quite actually true. People think Corbyn is much, much worse than Johnson.
So increase your astonishment.
And I'd like to understand how this can be true.
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, lazy, mendacious, hypocritical, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
Have I missed anything?
"Laziness": only one out of Johnson and Corbyn has called someone a "girly swot" for wanting MPs to do some work in the month of September.
"Mendacity": only one of them has repeatedly been sacked by employers for dishonesty. Not very many people have that kind of record, but the present prime minister does.
"Hypocrisy": if Tories think free-at-the-point-of-use broadband is "communist", why not say the same about NHS maternity care? And if getting stuff for free is a bad idea, and if the rich are rich because they're intelligent, then why not raise IHT to 90% on larger estates?
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
Wow. Living proof that some people really do swallow every particle of drivel that they read in the tabloids!
And you are living proof there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Call me a leftie or whatever but I find it genuinally astonishing that people think Corbyn and Johnson are just as bad as each other.
Well not quite actually true. People think Corbyn is much, much worse than Johnson.
So increase your astonishment.
And I'd like to understand how this can be true.
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, lazy, mendacious, hypocritical, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
Have I missed anything?
"Laziness": only one out of Johnson and Corbyn has called someone a "girly swot" for wanting MPs to do some work in the month of September.
"Mendacity": only one of them has repeatedly been sacked by employers for dishonesty. Not very many people have that kind of record, but the present prime minister does.
"Hypocrisy": if Tories think free-at-the-point-of-use broadband is "communist", why not say the same about NHS maternity care? And if getting stuff for free is a bad idea, and if the rich are rich because they're intelligent, then why not raise IHT to 90% on larger estates?
Because Corbyn is an intellectually challenged, ignorant piece of unreconstructed Marxist excrement.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
What some people can't seem to understand is that you can hold a similar view to yours re Corbyn and still vote Labour.
Out with friends the other day, know they loathe Corbyn so amazed when they said they are voting Labour. Reasoning was they are remainers who can't stand Johnson or Corbyn but their Labour MP is a moderate, a remainer and a good constituency MP whereas the Tory candidate is a rabid brexiteer.
I am in a very similar position in a different seat, a Lab-Con marginal. If it was a PR election I would vote Lib Dem but if I do vote on the 12th it will be Labour for similar reasons.
Lots of people out there can't stand either of the major party leaders.
Comments
People also like to point to Barcelona / Real Madrid fan ownership, but again it is a massively uncompetitive league AND the local governments have had to bail both clubs out by dodgy deals like massively overpaying for training ground land in order to stop them going bust.
That better? I could add treacherous, terrorist supporting, anti-semite enabler but I hate to state the very obvious which is very much already factored in to peoples opinion of him.
Normal people take their cues from the media so when they see the ERG and Farage (sort of) falling in behind the deal they will assume it is a 'real' Brexit as opposed to whatever May was offering.
PB is brilliant for the forensic dissection of policy, polling and other 'nerdy' stuff.
Where perhaps we are not as good is viewing politics through the basic, broad brush eyes of a voter who only goes to the polling station once every few years.
Crisis? What crisis?
Up Yours Delors
It's Paddy Pantsdown
If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights
Now we've ALL been screwed by the Cabinet
Is this the most dangerous man in Britain?
This party is no more..it has ceased to be..this is an EX-party
Hey Dude! Don't make it bad
Also, one of the features of the campaign that probably contributed to Labour's defeat at GE2015 was that they didn't have control of the narrative. They tried to keep the campaign focused on a single topic for too long, but the media get bored, and the Tories were very adept at changing the subject. This put Labour continually on the defensive.
By changing the subject themselves from the NHS they made sure that the next focus of the campaign was on something they wanted to talk about, rather than something the Tories wanted to talk about. It's left the Tories only reacting.
So the question is, what's moving SPIN back Labour? My sell on Con>Lab supremacy is now in profit despite a house margin of 12.
Size of any majority has also once again (though just barely) decoupled by a seat from 'size of Conservative majority'. A non-Conservative majority of over 37 seems a little unlikely, though I guess the latter still banks a bigger win with a non-Con majority of anything.
However if I was one of those who is really expecting Brexit to deliver on its promises then Bozo is the last leader I would want in charge. I doubt he really even supports Brexit but it served to get him to where he wanted.
All the talk about a European super league misses the point that thanks to the relatively equitable share of the massive TV money, the Premier League is a super league.
Labour isn't proposing getting rid of competitors, they can use the infrastructure as they do today.
The difference is a natural manopoly will not be owned by one company, operated by a cartel and allowed to abuse its position for far too long.
The reason we don't have FTTP for all is because BT have no financial incentive to offer it. They have no competition.
The one exception is the Man Utd setup, that is terrible. But all the other top clubs have been transformed by the billionaire ownership. Leicester would have never one the league without their Thai owners. Man City owners have transformed not just the team, but the whole area.
Cars ~ laptops, smartphones ~ clothes you wear on way to hospital.
Something that's becoming increasing clear is that the Tories are not going to win this election on a combination of "Get Brexit Done" and "Jeremy Corbyn is poo".
If we were learning to use best practice we would copy South Korea or Estonia. State planned infrastructure, highly competitive consumer provision provided by market forces.
When it comes to internet services, there is a huge range of demand even among home users, not just one size pipe. Hence why some people will pay £60 a month to Virgin for 1Gb, while others are happy with £15 for 15Mb.
The only reason I have FTTC is via my taxes having paid BT to install it.
But yes, Newcastle fans are angry because they think they have a right to have a rich owner financing them. They don’t.
I don’t have any sympathy for Man Utd fans, the ownership model doesn’t stop them spending (very badly) a lot of money.
The really bad story of the last decade was the asset stripping at Blackpool.
But...you will never see the dream of say a Leicester rising the ranks, as they just won't ever be able to find the funds to compete.
However it appears that information has come to light that 'Home secretary Priti Patel, (together with Ben Wallace and Said Javid) intervened to block a recent rescue operation to bring British orphans and unaccompanied minors home from Syria, sources have revealed.'
The report doesn't specify the ages of the children, but I wouldn't have thought they were very old; I would have thought probably primary school age.
On humanitarian grounds surely children of that age should be brought back, never mind what the parents may or may not have done.
In addition to the impact of lack of market forces on ISP provision, there are also scary impacts of a single state owned provider.
...
This is a dictionary definition of a manopoly. It's either Government run as one or by a private company as one. That's the reality.
Opinion polling already tells us that nationalisation as a policy is a lot more popular than Jeremy Corbyn is as a person.
Labour policies are actually quite popular. Their leader isn't. If Labour fight this election on policy they negate some of the Corbyn effect and also prevent the Tories turning this into a Brexit election.
It's 2017 all over again. Wild speculation over a Tory landslide turning, wobbling, and ending up NOM. Again.
Been out for a few hours with the voters. Have I missed much here?
The Labour plan sounds a lot better than what the Tories want to do (didn't they scrap it?).
But everyone seems to hate the idea of a franchise system with checks and balances on the most successful clubs. Everyone gets bleary eyed for Wimbledon, but clubs going bust and falling out of the league is the flip side.
I used to work in telecoms, the astonishing thing was how many people thought BT was the only telecoms company and that they were still owned by the Government.
What they do know is that the broadband they have is probably crap. That's it.
I think it will cut through very well myself.
It’s also reasons for government to invest directly where there would otherwise be a market failure, say to run fibre cable to the last 5% of homes without it.
None of the above means we need to go back to the BT of the ‘70s and ‘80s, where you wait three months for your standard 16mb line at £300 a month, and you’d be better be damn grateful that they deign to serve you - which is what Labour are proposing.
Also, broadband isn't crap in most towns and cities. It is actually very good. Again it isn't South Korea good, but it is good and relatively cheap.
We're going to end up funding it, whether through BT or not. FTTC coverage was not provided via private sector investment, it was overwhelmingly via Government subsidy.
Labour are running a masterful campaign.
Summary of the final month:
* two weeks debating popular and sensible and in some cases surprise policies from Labour (surprise gets attention), doubtless with more "gaffs" from Boris Johnson such as not knowing how to make a cup of tea, not knowing how to show compassion for flood victims, not wanting to say how many children he's got, etc.,
* followed by two weeks of "if you want a Romanian for your neighbour" from Tories and from the voter suppression operation called the Brexit "Party".
What's not to like for a fan that actually goes to matches?
I think most people accept we need FTTP. The private sector isn't going to finance it, the Government will have to.
Do you think we should continue the BDUK approach where we just hand BT money?
I have never been anywhere else in the world where people are desperately seeking to watch the Bundesliga matches week in week out in the way they do for the EPL.
It is also the reason the likes of the NFL is a mega hit both in the US and now here. The league is so competitive, and it results in so many of the games being extremely closed matched.
Most people are in favour of rail nationalisation because they think it will mean cheaper train tickets. They are less interested in investment in infrastructure, maintenence, service quality etc. All they see is the greedy capitalist profiteering.
It's this all over again:
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/476213759390683/
Only instead of Virgin trains, it's Virgin media.
Leicester have only spent 1 season outside the top 2 divisions since formation.
My point was fan owned clubs in the lower leagues would never be able to find that kind of money.
Now we are owned by a Cockney, try to grind out results and have an annual battle against relegation.
I've lost interest.
Khun Vichai put money into Leicester, but most was to buy back the stadium after a previous owner sold it. FFP rules mean that net inflows of money are modest.
I'm less interested in what the media have to say about it and more interested in what ordinary people on social media are saying about it. And from what I can tell there it seems pretty popular.
Nationalising stuff has a simple appeal to simple minds, and I suspect that is where the battle is won, not in the newspapers. Momentum has an excellent digital/social operation. The Tories, less so.
Corbyn is anti-Semitic and consorts with terrorists
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1195716561883009024?s=20
Gas 47% ▲1pp (▼2% volume)
Nuclear 18% ▼2pp (▼14% volume)
Wind 16% ▲3pp (▲17% volume)
Solar (est.) 12% n/c (▼3% volume)
Biomass 6% ▲1pp (▲10% volume)
Coal 4% ▼3pp (▼51% volume)
Hydro 1% n/c (▲19% volume)
Britain has halved its coal usage in the last 365 days compared to the year before.
Out with friends the other day, know they loathe Corbyn so amazed when they said they are voting Labour. Reasoning was they are remainers who can't stand Johnson or Corbyn but their Labour MP is a moderate, a remainer and a good constituency MP whereas the Tory candidate is a rabid brexiteer.
I am in a very similar position in a different seat, a Lab-Con marginal. If it was a PR election I would vote Lib Dem but if I do vote on the 12th it will be Labour for similar reasons.
Lots of people out there can't stand either of the major party leaders.
https://twitter.com/divaeharris/status/1195337444759146496?s=20