General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
blueinsa said:
I'm intrigued as to how you have got your hands on this detail because I've just listened to Corbyn again and its not what he says is on offer.

Full fibre high speed broadband for all and free and Google, hope you are listening he said, it will be paid for by tax.

I think you and Bob have invented an offer here to be honest?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between promising access than promising services.
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Investing in infrastructure is important mate. There's a reason Singapore are top of the league so to speak in terms of internet speed

It's good for the economy to push on in terms of technology
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone doubts this mate, it's just Labour's usual fairytale economics which make the idea so idiotic. There's two questions here,

(a) should the provision of a national infrastructure such as communications, be owned and run by the government? Based on our experience of pretty much every single thing the government has run ever, then the answer to that is a pretty obvious "of course not", despite the loons believing otherwise.

But let's park that for a moment. The other question is

(b) Should the provision of this communication network be free? That is a completely separate question from (a).

The answer to that question is also "of course not". Very many people do not need such a subsidy, and that would mean throwing money away which could very well be spent on something else like healthcare. Moreover, the idea of Labour buying assets but that the cost doesn't matter because these assets will be generating a return (a dubious justification, but never mind) goes out of the window if there is no return. As an enormous cost-guzzling organisation with no revenue, a nationalised BT would necessarily be competing for funding with the NHS, the police, armed service etc. It costs £20bn PER YEAR to run BT, by the way. Inevitably it will end up with less and less investment and will fall behind. This is so apparent from everything the government ever owns, it always turns to shit. Wouldn't it be great if we could learn from those lessons for a change?
 
I'm still waiting for the Labour policy of shooting all children under 3 in order to reduce childcare costs, and the convoluted hoops Bob will jump through to try to sell it as a good idea.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I don't think anyone doubts this mate, it's just Labour's usual fairytale economics which make the idea so idiotic. There's two questions here,

(a) should the provision of a national infrastructure such as communications, be owned and run by the government? Based on our experience of pretty much every single thing the government has run ever, then the answer to that is a pretty obvious "of course not", despite the loons believing otherwise.

But let's park that for a moment. The other question is

(b) Should the provision of this communication network be free? That is a completely separate question from (a).

The answer to that question is also "of course not". Very many people do not need such a subsidy, and that would mean throwing money away which could very well be spent on something else like healthcare. Moreover, the idea of Labour buying assets but that the cost doesn't matter because these assets will be generating a return (a dubious justification, but never mind) goes out of the window if there is no return. As an enormous cost-guzzling organisation with no revenue, a nationalised BT would necessarily be competing for funding with the NHS, the police, armed service etc. It costs £20bn PER YEAR to run BT, by the way. Inevitably it will end up with less and less investment and will fall behind. This is so apparent from everything the government ever owns, it always turns to shit. Wouldn't it be great if we could learn from those lessons for a change?
Click to expand...
It depends if you believe in a private companies (in this case BT) ability to carry out the desire of the government to see fibre broadband nationwide or that they can't and it needs nationalising.

I personally would support it being nationalised with it being charged at say £10p/m and subsidised for people below a certain earnings threshold. With 23 million households you could potentially recoup 2.6 billion a year allowing further investment into infrastructure. Obviously under that proposal you'd lose some money to those below a certain earnings bracket.

Like I've said to you in past I'm neither a purist capitalist or socialist, but I believe something drastic needs to be done about our position in the world of technology, we're falling behind and that needs to be done
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
It depends if you believe in a private companies (in this case BT) ability to carry out the desire of the government to see fibre broadband nationwide or that they can't and it needs nationalising.

I personally would support it being nationalised with it being charged at say £10p/m and subsidised for people below a certain earnings threshold. With 23 million households you could potentially recoup 2.6 billion a year allowing further investment into infrastructure. Obviously under that proposal you'd lose some money to those below a certain earnings bracket.

Like I've said to you in past I'm neither a purist capitalist or socialist, but I believe something drastic needs to be done about our position in the world of technology, we're falling behind and that needs to be done
Click to expand...
You should apply for a job on the Labour front bench - you seem infinitely more sensible than the idiots they have running the asylum. I don't agree with your nationalisation conclusions by the way, but at least you bring a sense of pragmatism to the discussion.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You should apply for a job on the Labour front bench - you seem infinitely more sensible than the idiots they have running the asylum. I don't agree with your nationalisation conclusions by the way, but at least you bring a sense of pragmatism to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Can't be arsed with politics, I'd never get chance to watch city :)
 
blueinsa said:
I'm intrigued as to how you have got your hands on this detail because I've just listened to Corbyn again and its not what he says is on offer.

Full fibre high speed broadband for all and free and Google, hope you are listening he said, it will be paid for by tax.

I think you and Bob have invented an offer here to be honest?
Click to expand...

Christ on a bike. You even responded to my earlier post where I specifically said I spent about 5 minutes thinking how this could work especially with respect to EU State Aid and competition rules.

Unbelievable Jeff.
 
blueinsa said:
Free high speed fibre broadband to every household and business is whats on offer.

There will be no competition for that, especially a paid one.
Click to expand...
There would be no competition if unlimited data was included in that pledge but if they're providing 100MB per month throttled back to dial up speeds then that won't be the case. So far I've seen no commitments as to the free performance offered, just the availability. Back to the roads analogy, unless I've missed something they've pledged the equivalent of a motorway to everyone's house. You still need a decent car.
 
BobKowalski said:
Christ on a bike. You even responded to my earlier post where I specifically said I spent about 5 minutes thinking how this could work especially with respect to EU State Aid and competition rules.

Unbelievable Jeff.
Click to expand...

Your bike crashed and you fell off Bob.

You're attempting to sell the policy by saying its not a complete package and that paid for ISP's will still be very much in business and you do that because you know full well EU anti competition law will be all over this plan like a rash.

Again, Labour are promising full high speed fibre broadband to every home and business.

No slow train once a week, no connection for email only or job websites, full HS2 broadband for all and free for all.

If you have an issue with that please address all your concerns and train analogies to Mr J.Corbyn c/o the Labour party.
 
west didsblue said:
There would be no competition if unlimited data was included in that pledge but if they're providing 100MB per month throttled back to dial up speeds then that won't be the case. So far I've seen no commitments as to the free performance offered, just the availability. Back to the roads analogy, unless I've missed something they've pledged the equivalent of a motorway to everyone's house. You still need a decent car.
Click to expand...

They even proclaim it will save everyone a bill every month.

British Broadband is here.

Full high speed fibre broadband to every household and business is the pledge and offer.

Fully costed, fully legal, fully deliverable and Facebook, Google and Amazon will be paying for it.

Choo choo......all aboard the free shit train and no ticket required!
 
blueinsa said:
Your bike crashed and you fell off Bob.

You're attempting to sell the policy by saying its not a complete package that that paid for ISP's will still be very much in business and you do that because you know full well EU anti competition law will be all over this plan like a rash.

Again, Labour are promising full high speed fibre broadband to every home and business.

No slow train once a week, no connection for email only or job websites, full HS2 broadband for all and free for all.

If you have an issue with that please address all your concerns and train analogies to Mr J.Corbyn c/o the Labour party.
Click to expand...

I’m not selling anything. I’m having a discussion about a policy, it’s merits and how it might work. Seriously what is your problem with that?
 
BobKowalski said:
I’m not selling anything. I’m having a discussion about a policy, it’s merits and how it might work. Seriously what is your problem with that?
Click to expand...

Its not based on reality or whats being offered is the main issue I have to be honest.

Its frankly pointless unless you are suggesting the offer really isn't the offer and that what is being promised wont ever be delivered?
 
Chris in London said:
Bollocks to that, blue.

Wear your refusal to appear on the broadcaster that uses our money to pay salaries to Simon Stone and Dan Roan as a badge of honour.
Click to expand...
But bottled the chance for a public dig at Boris. Was ready to apologize for making demands on the NHS when I had a stroke after no demands in previous 50 years.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Maybe if you bought 1 BT share (heaven for fucking bid) then instead of your constant harping, whinging, whining and moaning you might see a crumb of benefit. Who the hell do you think BT's profits go to, Robert Maxwell in the sky? To pension funds, to UK citizens.

And anyway, far from profiteering, "
Profits dip at BT while troubled biz steams ahead with restructuring
All divisions flat or down as firm tries to up its fibre plans" - October 2019.

You lot just cannot stand the idea of a company making a bloody profit can you. Well that nauseating attitude will keep you out of office, again.
Click to expand...
If we apply the No Deal principle of negotiation (a credible threat to get a good deal) perhaps threatening nationalisation will make private companies up their game (especially those enjoying monopoly profits).
 
blueinsa said:
They even proclaim it will save everyone a bill every month.

British Broadband is here.

Full high speed fibre broadband to every household and business is the pledge and offer.

Fully costed, fully legal, fully deliverable and Facebook, Google and Amazon will be paying for it.

Choo choo......all aboard the free shit train and no ticket required!
Click to expand...
Agree it's being oversold for election reasons. I'm convinced the reality would be very different.
 
west didsblue said:
Agree it's being oversold for election reasons. I'm convinced the reality would be very different.
Click to expand...

We got there.

It would have to be because a project of this size and nature will cost so much money and its an impossibility to make it free, if for no other reason it puts business offering paid services to the wall and would fall foul of EU anti competition law.

That of course wouldn't be an issue for a Corbyn who has campaigned all his life to be out of the EU and his government.

Funny that!
 
Chippy_boy said:
Natural monopoly or not Len (not, but let's not let that get in the way of the fundamental point), it's not "free".
This is just yet another example of Labour's head in the clouds, money no object, spending whatever they like on whatever whim they dream up next. And in this particular case, yet another example of saying whatever they like in order to bribe some more gullible voters. Well bad luck Len, the bribes did not work last time and since then, the vast majority have seen Corbyn for the slimy shit that he is, so they will work even less this time.
Click to expand...
Politics Live panellist Polly McKenzie just made the silver bullet point that even natural monopolies taken into public ownership cannot then be the offered for 'free' without considering the impact on competitor free services - eg NHS, Education, etc etc
about 45:30 inhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000b8t1/politics-live-15112019
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top