Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: gt94sss2 on November 14, 2019, 10:10:46 PM
-
I moved this to Chit Chat because it's become a general political discussion - roseway
Labour has promised to give every home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030, if it wins the general election.
The party would nationalise part of BT and introduce a tax on tech giants to cover the £20bn cost.
Broadband packages in the UK cost households an average of around £30, according to a report by broadband comparison site Cable - which people would no longer have to pay under Labour's scheme.
The plan includes nationalising parts of BT - namely its digital network arm Openreach - to create a UK-wide network owned by the government.
A Labour government would compensate shareholders by issuing government bonds.
A new entity called British Broadband would then run the network, with maintenance - estimated to cost £230m a year - to be covered by the new tax on companies such as Apple and Google.
"We think they should pay their way and other countries are following suit," said Mr McDonnell.
Labour has not yet completed the final details of how the internet giant tax would work saying it would be based 'percentage wise'' on the global profits and UK sales, raising potentially as much as £6bn.
Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to the new entity, British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership.
"Making sure [fibre broadband] free to people [means] they can participate in the way that they haven't in the past both economically and socially," he added.
Full article/ video at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50427369 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50427369)
Desperately trying not to make any comment that might be seen as political... !
-
:lol:
-
I guess they will be offering free electricity, gas and water next!!!
-
This is not as crazy as it sounds. In our modern online world, fibre is awfully similar to roads or pavements and could very well be paid for differently if re-nationalised.
I am of course dubious of how it would work, as surely they wouldn't just give everyone Gigabit and call it a day. But to give everyone say a basic 20Mbit fibre connection and let you pay for a higher bandwidth tier package, would seem sensible.
-
Corbyn had good idea's early in his reign but he is slowly losing the plot.
There is things that are for the good of the people but this idea isn't it.
People cannot afford food is common, cannot afford rent is common, cannot afford broadband? not such a big deal. If you cannot afford fixed price broadband you can still probably order food shopping online, do internet banking, those type of things on PAYG broadband services. Not to mention nationalising BT is not going to be a vote winner, all this policy does is put ammo into those who claim he is a left wing loony who wants to go hard core.
Alex, I am not against government funded rollout, but they don't need to nationalise BT to do that, and I think the idea of giving everyone free broadband is completely stupid. A clear election bribe as can be.
-
It's ludicrous, and just takes in the gullible.
If labour win our country won't be able to afford anything because we would have borrowed too much for stuff we simply can't afford and shouldn't be spending money on, and therefore all the country's income is used to service the debt.
My brother does this, and then wonders why he's broke every month.
-
At the risk of bringing more politics to this forum (there's not a lot of it) - how anyone can vote Labour is honestly beyond me. They are promising all the freebies in the world. People don't realise they are going to be taxed on it, and they'll be borrowing left right and centre to pay for it all. National debt will sky rocket.
-
How much tax does BT and the other ISPs that will close pay, how many jobs will be lost?
What about all the pension funds and peoples investments in companies that are nationalised, who's going to get compensated and wheres the money going to come from?
It will get to the point where it's not worth me doing my job, slowly the gap between the minimum wage and what I'm paid is being eroded, therefore I might as well do an easier less stressful job, or not work at all and live the dream on all the freebies to come.
-
I am not the most knowledgeable on government finances, but I can see wrong with this. The money must come from somewhere, and connectivity is actually quite competitive and affordable as it is. The idea of free for everyone is just madness.
I know this is not the "free" paradise that Labour would want it to be, but BT - a private company - already offers reduced cost broadband and telephone service known as "BT Basic" (average 10 Mbps) for £9.95 a month with free install for people on certain low income Government benefits; only thing one must pay upfront is postage fees for the router. Granted, it's only 15GB monthly usage, but that is cheap enough to tie someone over until they have earnings while allowing them to keep in touch with people and do the little everyday thing.
Anyway, I wonder if Diane Abbott is responsible for the maths here.
-
How long before somebody promises that everybody will be able to get above average download speeds?
-
How long before somebody promises that everybody will be able to get above average download speeds?
:graduate:
-
The ISP Review article (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/2020-labour-party-pegs-20bn-to-deploy-free-full-fibre-for-all.html) says it all, if you read it properly and between the lines.
Meanwhile the idea of nationalising Openreach (BT) under public ownership is a much more complicated issue (i.e. its impact upon pensions, the question of who takes on BT’s massive debt pile (the public?), shareholders, competition etc.) and one that is likely to result in plenty of legal challenges (this could hamper the fibre rollout until settled). Not to mention a lengthy debate over whether that by itself would result in a better market.
. At this stage there isn’t a lot of detail but the logical conclusion of this would be the near total destruction of the current competitive market, including all ISPs on Openreach’s network and alternative networks – both large and small alike. Since after all, what operator could reasonably ever be expected to compete against a completely free full fibre rival. Not to mention the huge on-going costs of upkeep, support, capacity supplies and maintenance.
Bottom line is it's just another bribe by the Corbyn machine to gain votes, and they'll worry about the consequences later.
-
Bottom line is it's just another bribe by the Corbyn machine to gain votes, and they'll worry about the consequences later.
Absolutely - praying that everyone simply doesn't fall for it.
-
Its shocking how far he's fallen.
In January he probably would have got in power from an election, and the policies in place were less extreme and things the country needed.
Now he has a strange EU stance, and coming out with nonsense like this. :(
Given labour's current polling there isnt a chance this will be enacted as they miles away from the tories polling right now.
-
From the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/nov/15/bt-claims-labour-nationalisation-plan-cost-100bn-business-live)
Rival TalkTalk stalls sale of fibre arm after Labour announces BT plans
BT rival TalkTalk is holding off on a decision to sell its own infrastructure arm to see how this whole Labour plan pans out.
TalkTalk chief executive Tristia Harrison told Reuters:
Our discussions are very advanced, and yes, the news overnight of course is making everybody in the sector pause and consider.
We were really close, really close, but I think something of this sort that is in the news, obviously everybody is pausing, considering, digesting and working out what it means.
Sky News, which first reported the strategic delay, said CityFibre Holdings nearly signed a deal to acquire TalkTalk’s FibreNation on Thursday before Labour’s pledge was announced.
Matthew Howett, Founder & Principal Analyst at Assembly comments:
This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.
The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.
Only one other country in the world to come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention.
-
From the ISPreview article;
The new entity, British Broadband, will have two arms: British Digital Infrastructure (BDI), which will roll-out the public network, and the UK ISP British Broadband Service (BBS), which will deliver free broadband.
So effectively we'd all be going through the government to access the Internet :'( Type any wrongthink :police: and :-X
-
Don’t take it for granted that this’ll die the death, BT share price is already falling, so some people must think it may happen. :o
When companies like BT crash it’s not just private investors that get burned. Private pension funds, company pension funds, and other investments, are all likely to have holdings in such companies. Same applies to Apple, Microsoft etc, all are used by pension funds and others.
Tempting to think... if these folks did get elected... now the precedents been set with the Brexit referendum, can the powers that be simply decide to ignore the election on the basis that ‘people voted incorrectly’, and refuse to let them take over?
-
There's all sort of rational arguments one could make about this, but at the end of the day the idea can be summed up in one word:
BONKERS
-
From the ISPreview article;
So effectively we'd all be going through the government to access the Internet :'( Type any wrongthink :police: and :-X
Even China would be impressed
-
Talk Talk have postponed the sale of Fibre Nation over this.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-broadband-pledge-stalls-talktalk-sale-11861708
-
Even China would be impressed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
Yep, there's your starting point. Take that, amplify it a few times, then you'll be close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A29y7YRiZs
They'll censor it, alright. DO NOT BE FOOLED.
-
Don’t take it for granted that this’ll die the death, BT share price is already falling, so some people must think it may happen. :o
When companies like BT crash it’s not just private investors that get burned. Private pension funds, company pension funds, and other investments, are all likely to have holdings in such companies. Same applies to Apple, Microsoft etc, all are used by pension funds and others.
Tempting to think... if these folks did get elected... now the precedents been set with the Brexit referendum, can the powers that be simply decide to ignore the election on the basis that ‘people voted incorrectly’, and refuse to let them take over?
The Brexit referendum was none-binding so CAN be ignored, in fact its the only reason it wasn't written off as illegal. A General Election IS binding!
Talk Talk have postponed the sale of Fibre Nation over this.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-broadband-pledge-stalls-talktalk-sale-11861708
I'd imagine Openreach will put the brakes on all their investment until after the election now. :(
Honestly there was a time where re-nationalising made sense, but I feel that has passed. This is only likely to delay fibre roll out even further as all current plans will be thrown in the bin if Labour get in and they'd have bigger things to worry about in the short term.
-
I sincerely hope Labour get decimated in this election, I really do. Socialism is out of date and has no place in modern society. Nationalisation of everything is clearly not the answer.
-
The Brexit referendum was none-binding so CAN be ignored
I suspect the clever lawyers who drew that conclusion could concoct a similar justification for ignoring an election, if they put their minds to it. Nobody that I knew thought, when they voted, that it was non binding any more than an election is non binding.
-
S'alright, we'll be holding another election on December 13th, 14th and 15th until the correct result comes out.
-
Oh boy, doesn't the political state of the country just seem to be a downward spiral? There's the uncertainty of Brexit and future investment in the UK, and it keeps getting delayed over and over again. Now there is a potential that private companies may be put off investing into telecommunications because of Labour wanting to nationalise broadband. I sometimes wonder if I slept and woke up on some crazy alternative timeline.
-
Oh boy, doesn't the political state of the country just seem to be a downward spiral? There's the uncertainty of Brexit and future investment in the UK, and it keeps getting delayed over and over again. Now there is a potential that private companies may be put off investing into telecommunications because of Labour wanting to nationalise broadband. I sometimes wonder if I slept and woke up on some crazy alternative timeline.
And what's worse, people seem to relate to these idiots and want to vote them in, too!
-
I sometimes wonder if I slept and woke up on some crazy alternative timeline.
That one gets my vote. ;D
-
And what's worse, people seem to relate to these idiots and want to vote them in, too!
I just want Brexit over with and not have quite a healthy and invested market (in my opinion) essentially decimated at gov's fingertips. I think all parties are a bit sh*te, but at least I know Labour is very much out of the running for me in this election - they stepped too far away from targeting the working class and seem to be going too far towards the direction of national debt and appealing to the economically inactive voters. It sorta ties in to the other thread where this dreamland is very much the ideal for younger voters - those a bit wet behind the ears, especially 16/17 year olds no doubt (not saying some adults also don't live in this reality, however).
-
I just want Brexit over with and not have quite a healthy and invested market (in my opinion) essentially decimated at gov's fingertips. I think all parties are a bit sh*te, but at least I know Labour is very much out of the running for me in this election - they stepped too far away from targeting the working class and seem to be going too far towards the direction of national debt and appealing to the economically inactive voters. It sorta ties in to the other thread where this dreamland is very much the ideal for younger voters - those a bit wet behind the ears, especially 16/17 year olds no doubt (not saying some adults also don't live in this reality, however).
This will be why they suddenly wanted to rush through 16/17 year old voters for this election too. It's all about stopping Brexit, because it goes against what the "establishment" want
-
Pity those North of the border, if they favour remaining in the UK. The SNP finally got the go-ahead for their long awaited independence referendum in 2014. They played their trump card by allowed children to vote, yet it wasn’t quite enough, they lost.
Response? Never mind, they’ll have another referendum, and another, and another, until the population votes correctly. Then the referendums will presumable stop. Makes me slightly ashamed to be Scottish tbh which I am by birth, parentage, ancestry, and upbringing.
Rest of UK is not quite that bad, but I suspect we’re heading that way. :(
-
Jesus guys, are you really going to make me add News Articles to the ignored boards list?
-
Never mind, they’ll have another referendum, and another, and another, until the population votes correctly. Then the referendums will presumable stop.
I love democracy, but that seems to be the absurd reality where you could end up voting over and over again on the same matter every day, week or month and you would just get constantly different results, but the result you get might not be good enough. Brexit could be the same situation, so what is it gonna be? Another one after the election just in case we've changed our minds? How about another two and make it best of three just to be sure?
Jesus guys, are you really going to make me add News Articles to the ignored boards list?
Unfortunately, when there is a post regarding a political party making a pledge, it's going to be pretty hard to steer clear of political discussion and debate relating to that party, related parties, and maybe even a couple of things that may not have a direct link.
Anyway, the point is that Labour has made a stupid pledge and hopefully no other parties follow suit.
-
Absolutely, politics is what has triggered this news piece in the first place!
-
Pity those North of the border, if they favour remaining in the UK. The SNP finally got the go-ahead for their long awaited independence referendum in 2014. They played their trump card by allowed children to vote, yet it wasn’t quite enough, they lost.
Response? Never mind, they’ll have another referendum, and another, and another, until the population votes correctly. Then the referendums will presumable stop. Makes me slightly ashamed to be Scottish tbh which I am by birth, parentage, ancestry, and upbringing.
Rest of UK is not quite that bad, but I suspect we’re heading that way. :(
Well a lot of the UK have moaned on for years about a second referendum, a PEOPLES VOTE. People didn't know what they voted for - I find it all quite insulting. I knew what I voted for! I don't need another referendum, thanks, and nor does anyone else. I think they all blissfully assumed it would be remain, and were simply not prepared to carry out "Leave" because they thought they never had to!
-
Indeed. I can just imagine the politicians (all parties) meeting after the vote, to decide how to proceed.
Chairman: “We must respect the referendum, and work out how to respond. But are we all agreed, the one thing we absolutely will not do, is to leave the EU?”
Huge chorus of agreement, and big rounds of applause. :)
-
Whilst I, as have others, have broken with the “No politics” convention, and I personally don’t feel like stopping...
...Many thanks to Roseway for moving this thread from ‘news’ to ‘chit chat’. A much better home for it. :)
-
Yes probably a sensible move, haha!
-
S'alright, we'll be holding another election on December 13th, 14th and 15th until the correct result comes out.
I guess that’s why I’ve decided not to vote anymore. It seems a worthless exercise. I’m not political but the claims by all the parties to my basic mind are flawed I really struggle to understand who actually believes the basic inaccuracies and unaffordable consequences.
Tony
-
I guess that’s why I’ve decided not to vote anymore. It seems a worthless exercise. I’m not political but the claims by all the parties to my basic mind are flawed I really struggle to understand who actually believes the basic inaccuracies and unaffordable consequences.
Tony
Well, we haven't had a 2nd referendum on Brexit, so there should be hope from that. A lot of Labour voters these days seem to not understand the unaffordable consequences that you mention...
-
Well, we haven't had a 2nd referendum on Brexit, so there should be hope from that. A lot of Labour voters these days seem to not understand the unaffordable consequences that you mention...
Its not necessarily unaffordable if you're using joined-up thinking rather than just doing something and ignoring how it impacts everything else.
Are Labour using joined-up thinking here? I'm honestly not sure.
On the one hand I think nationalising infrastructure is GOOD. Splitting off telecoms, water, gas, electricity, has made a complete mess of those things.
On the other hand, I don't think having just one national ISP is a great idea due to the many issues we have discussed - not least our privacy and content filtering potential. I also think its bad timing, with Openreach FINALLY deciding to push forward with Fibre First. I think it will impact me personally in that my exchange being due to start being worked on any time now, will probably now get delayed until after the election. If Labour do get in I'd imagine it would be delayed even more, due to the uncertainty of how things are going to proceed.
There are just far too many pressing issues the government would need to deal with BEFORE taking over Openreach, and the potential legal challenges they will get from that. Its likely to delay FTTP roll out longer than just leaving Openreach to their own devices at this point.
-
Looks (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/openreach-prep-0-5mbps-fttp-tier-and-trial-fod-for-mdu-buildings.html) like Openreach is getting ready for Labour's free service for all. :lol:
Disclaimer: I'm joking
-
On the one hand I think nationalising infrastructure is GOOD. Splitting off telecoms, water, gas, electricity, has made a complete mess of those things.
Perhaps you're too young to remember the seventies, and the complete mess the nationally run industries were in, I was still a young child but have vauge memories. I asked someone yesterday who is a lot old than me, and he said they were a complete mess.
Just remember the NHS is basically a government run company, do you want that repeated across all our utilities?
I think nationalised services are run with a different mindset, everything goes well over budget because people just think it's only the governments money.
-
Perhaps you're too young to remember
Perhaps you are too old to realise you are being condescending to the only participant of this thread to offer any kind of reasonable debate?
-
I was still a young child but have vauge memories.
I’m clearly a little older than you, then. It’s hard to make direct comparisons, without memories being skewed by the effects industrial action by the trades unions, like the 3 day week imposed when miners went on strike. In fairness, strikes affect private companies too.
I suppose another approach is to compare things are state run today, with things that aren’t.
An example of privately run being the broadband network. Yes, we want more, we always will, but it is definitely improving year on year.
In contrast, motorways and trunk roads are nearly all state-provided. Not only has road building virtually ceased over recent decades, it’s effectively gone into reverse. Hundreds of miles of existing motorways are being downgraded to ‘smart’ status, which makes them little more than fast and busy dual carriageways.
-
Perhaps you are too old to realise you are being condescending to the only participant of this thread to offer any kind of reasonable debate?
Perhaps I am although not intentionally, but you can't remember, or perhaps appreciate what you haven't experienced (7LM has made a valid point about how my memories may have been influenced), therefore you may think something a good idea and not know it's been tried before and failed.
As for being tried before isn't Australia's national broadband (https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-tragedy-of-australias-nbn,11531) project woefully over budget and behind schedule, and with far lower speeds than previously envisaged? That project appears be the down to their labor party government back in 2007.
-
Perhaps I am although not intentionally, but you can't remember, or perhaps appreciate what you haven't experienced (7LM has made a valid point about how my memories may have been influenced), therefore you may think something a good idea and not know it's been tried before and failed.
As for being tried before isn't Australia's national broadband (https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-tragedy-of-australias-nbn,11531) project woefully over budget and behind schedule, and with far lower speeds than previously envisaged? That project appears be the down to their labor party government back in 2007.
Indeed, I can only cite early morning grumpiness for being so rude. Apologies.
Yes, the australian broadband project is a decent example of nationalised internet access gone wrong. But have you seen the size of the place? We live on a tiny little island.
Maybe not perfectly related, but have you read this about early adoption of fibre up to 1990:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
I feel there must be some balanced place to arrive at between nationalising everything and letting the free market and companies decide.
Maybe the government running Openreach and still having the same competition between ISPs would be that. Its a different world now to the 70s, should we try things once and give up on them forever?
-
I think my main concern over this and many other promises on funding things made by politicians is that where state funding is required the money has to come from somewhere and despite protestations about making millionaires and large companies pay more we all know that is very very difficult perhaps almost impossible, so who ends up paying - joe public in increased taxes whether or not they like it or can afford it. We all have to live within our means or suffer the consequences, governments should but do not, they just increase taxation.
Stuart
-
I think my main concern over this and many other promises on funding things made by politicians is that where state funding is required the money has to come from somewhere and despite protestations about making millionaires and large companies pay more we all know that is very very difficult perhaps almost impossible, so who ends up paying - joe public in increased taxes whether or not they like it or can afford it. We all have to live within our means or suffer the consequences, governments should but do not, they just increase taxation.
Stuart
And this is where a lot of modern Labour voters fall down. They think they are doing good by taxing the big corporations and getting the state to own everything, but it doesn't work that way. Big companies are clever, there are reasons why companies don't pay taxes like they should - they are clever about their money. They wouldn't be big companies, otherwise!
Anyway, it's fortunately looking like Labour will not win this next election, so we should be OK.
-
@Johnson you wasn't rude, and yes I had heard the Iron Lady had wrecked BT's previous efforts at fibre, which was a great shame.
-
Perhaps you're too young to remember the seventies, and the complete mess the nationally run industries were in, I was still a young child but have vauge memories. I asked someone yesterday who is a lot old than me, and he said they were a complete mess.
Just remember the NHS is basically a government run company, do you want that repeated across all our utilities?
I think nationalised services are run with a different mindset, everything goes well over budget because people just think it's only the governments money.
Just because it CAN be run badly, or even was in the past, doesn't mean it inherently has to be.
It also depends on the time frame as the Tories, like they are now with the NHS, were deliberately pushing nationalised services to run poorly so they could privatise them.
BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!
-
Anyway, it's fortunately looking like Labour will not win this next election, so we should be OK.
Speak for yourself, if the Tories get back in I will probably be kicked to the curb as a disabled person claiming PiP.
-
BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!
Actually, BT did not even exist in the 1970s. It was created in 1980, by splitting from the Post Office.
After privatisation in 1984 it seems to be true that BT led fibre research, becoming very strong in the field of fibre by the early 1990s, years after privatisation. They had by then already deployed fibre in part were even in a position to consider widespread deployment, targeting the local loop. My understanding is they were prevented from doing so by government and regulatory interference, another good reason to keep technology as far removed as possible from politicians. :)
-
Just because it CAN be run badly, or even was in the past, doesn't mean it inherently has to be.
My personal opinion is because it's government run it invariably goes badly no matter who's in charge (Labour, Conservative whoever),it's human nature (greed,can't be bothered attitudes, don't know any better) that causes the issues. My mate works for the council, he can do jobs and is qualified and capable to do them (he used to do them before the council took over!), but the managers overrule him because they don't understand and want to have someone else to blame if it goes wrong, and the end result is the council ends up with massive bills where he could have done it for a fraction of the cost, its the same all the way to the top. Government contracts always seem to go well over budget, I think companies put in higher quotes because it's the 'governments' money.
It also depends on the time frame as the Tories, like they are now with the NHS, were deliberately pushing nationalised services to run poorly so they could privatise them.
Can you link to the proof as I think that's just propaganda? The NHS's problem are vast, an ageing population, more people being saved, all the way from premature babies to the very old so their problems are far more complex, and with a much higher population means more hospital visits, it's going to take more than just money to fix.
BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!
Actually it was after they were privatised, and was interference from the then Tory Government that stopped it - see the link Johnson posted earlier https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
-
Speak for yourself, if the Tories get back in I will probably be kicked to the curb as a disabled person claiming PiP.
Have you been already, then?
-
Have you been already, then?
It was much harder to claim involving 12 months of fighting to get it, than it was when my mum got DLA. She also doesn't get any mental component because they claimed she didn't need it and is too afraid to fight it in case they take it off her competely again.
The whole benefit system is now designed to take the money off you whenever they can.
-
Well a lot of the UK have moaned on for years about a second referendum, a PEOPLES VOTE. People didn't know what they voted for - I find it all quite insulting. I knew what I voted for! I don't need another referendum, thanks, and nor does anyone else. I think they all blissfully assumed it would be remain, and were simply not prepared to carry out "Leave" because they thought they never had to!
I agree its insulting to claim every leave voter knew what they voted for, but I certainly know some leave voters who haven't a clue what they voted for, many of them family members.
Also I voted leave but I never wanted us to leave, it was a protest vote. So I am proof in the pudding on a new referendum I would vote the other way.
Usually other countries wouldn't enact a poll on such a tiny majority and even if they did its seen as sensible to have a confirmation vote. My personal opinion was the leave campaign was fed on a lot of mistruths and there needs to be a confirmation vote, but also the country should be prepared to leave very quickly if a confirmation vote confirms the first, not just sit halfway across the line for year's.
Whatever happens it is very evident our press needs regulating, we have so much news printed that's not fact checked, its damaging the country,
-
Its not necessarily unaffordable if you're using joined-up thinking rather than just doing something and ignoring how it impacts everything else.
Are Labour using joined-up thinking here? I'm honestly not sure.
On the one hand I think nationalising infrastructure is GOOD. Splitting off telecoms, water, gas, electricity, has made a complete mess of those things.
On the other hand, I don't think having just one national ISP is a great idea due to the many issues we have discussed - not least our privacy and content filtering potential. I also think its bad timing, with Openreach FINALLY deciding to push forward with Fibre First. I think it will impact me personally in that my exchange being due to start being worked on any time now, will probably now get delayed until after the election. If Labour do get in I'd imagine it would be delayed even more, due to the uncertainty of how things are going to proceed.
There are just far too many pressing issues the government would need to deal with BEFORE taking over Openreach, and the potential legal challenges they will get from that. Its likely to delay FTTP roll out longer than just leaving Openreach to their own devices at this point.
Yeah as I said I think earlier policies were more reasonable and some renationalisation might be a good idea, but I think the broadband sector was probably the worst area they could have targeted. The weakest candidate for such a policy. Rail is the strongest area to target absolutely no question on that one, maybe followed by gas. Telecoms is the sector you can argue that's doing reasonably well, fibre rollout is several years behind but it is at least now happening.
-
They’re offering free dental care too, now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50448108
Thank goodness they won’t be getting their way with children voting, else “free ice cream” would seem dangerously credible. :D
-
That I am ok with, I think its wrong that the NHS is funded from general taxation and then taxpayers have to pay "again" for things like prescriptions and dentists.
This is assuming they only mean NHS dentists.
-
But you can’t have ‘free everything’, or even ‘free anything’. It all has to be paid for by taxation, cutbacks, borrowing, or taking from other sources like when Gordon Brown raided the pensions funds, from which they never recovered.
-
I agree its insulting to claim every leave voter knew what they voted for, but I certainly know some leave voters who haven't a clue what they voted for, many of them family members.
I think whether people voted leave or remain most didn't know what they were actually voting for. A lot of people I know voted leave because of migration, but it won't make any difference to illegal migration, and we do actually need legal migrant workers.
Also I voted leave but I never wanted us to leave, it was a protest vote. So I am proof in the pudding on a new referendum I would vote the other way.
I was very indecisive, but in the end voted remain, simply because I could see it would be a huge mess and would most likely hit my modest investments hard, which it has. If there was another referendum then I would vote leave. Simple reason is we now know what leave means, we don't know what remain means, I think the end game is the EU will be one big superstate with our Government being no more than a local council for the UK and I don't want that.
Whatever happens it is very evident our press needs regulating, we have so much news printed that's not fact checked, its damaging the country,
I agree, most of us form our opinions by what we read or see on TV and the Internet, control that and you have a huge sway over the people.
As for the latest policy announcement, I've always thought it odd we have free health care, but that didn't include dentistry, but I'm still not going to vote Labour.
-
I’m trying to imagine what full NHS dental care would look like, in practice.
Instead of individual treatment rooms as at a typical dentists, just rows of chairs all in the same room, separated by curtains?
And needing to wait for hours for appointments that are running late, because the dentist has overbooked, having decreed that his/her time is more valuable than patient’s time?
And having to attend a surgery that has no nearby car parking, because the dentist’s managers believe that patient’s car parking is not their problem?
I do hope it remains optional.
-
Yes that doesn't paint a very nice picture does it. I suspect they will just offer to pay dentists X amount for a check up or they will threaten to nationalise them if they don't play ball.
Like healthcare there will always be private optiona unless they ban them like they want to with private schools :lol:
-
Like healthcare there will always be private optiona unless they ban them like they want to with private schools :lol:
Don’t get me started. I attended a private secondary school because the inner city comprehensive, that was the alternative, was a terrible and maybe even dangerous place. Father made big sacrifices to pay fees for me and my sister to get a decent school and both of us got to Uni. It would not have happened if I’d been sent to that comprehensive.
Damn, you got me started. :D
-
I was never clever enough to go to uni, just got CSE's at school, went on a YTS course for £25 a week, got interested cars and got a job for £50 a week at a local haulage company and have worked my way up from there. I like to think we've done fairly well, but that's mostly down to hard graft, and being sensible with money and living within our means.
We managed to get both our daughters into local grammar schools, the oldest got in easily, the youngest got in on appeal. Both are doing extremely well, the oldest is at uni and pays her own way, we've never had to support her financially (although we have paid for stuff) as she has worked hard since the age of 16 and still works when she's not at uni. The younger one will hopefully go to uni next year, and also finally has a part time job.
I think if people can afford to send the children to private schools then why not? Just because I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't mean they should be banned.
-
It’s not always a simple boolean, able or not to afford it.
In my case, it was a choice that my parents made, to do without other things in life, and spend on our education instead. We never had foreign holidays, lived in a council house, and Dad’s car was the most basic ford escort on the market, replaced every 7 or 8 years.
There were a few kids a my school who simply had wealthy patents but the majority were more like mine. I remember some of the other parents... a delivery van driver, a taxi driver, an airport worker, a butcher, all just making sacrifices elsewhere to pay the fees.
-
Afford should be boolean, yes I can or no I can't, your parents made sacrifices in areas of their/your lives so that they could afford to send you to a private school - they could afford one or the other, not both. I could buy a brand new car, but I make the choice not to as it would have a large negative impact on what I can afford when I'm retired, others would just spend that money, borrow more and worry about the consequences later, which is labours approach.
It's ironic that you lived in a council house and went to a private school, so perhaps the very people that labour claim to want to help, but then would have stopped you going to a private school. It's not always about how much money you have but how you choose to spend it (no holidays, old car), an awful lot of people lack the ability to manage their income, and thus fall into severe debt.
My mother and father split up when I was about ten years old, I remember my mother getting by on food handouts from the salvation army, my brothers and I used to wear second hand clothes we were given as well.
-
But you can’t have ‘free everything’, or even ‘free anything’. It all has to be paid for by taxation, cutbacks, borrowing, or taking from other sources like when Gordon Brown raided the pensions funds, from which they never recovered.
Labour are calling it free but in truth it would be "inclusive" as taxpayers already pay for it via general taxation.
There is nothing wrong with raising taxes anyway, they are at a historical level very low and it is affordable.
So many people only think of #1 and its their primary concern how much tax they pay, and for this reason they seem to oppose "any" kind of spending increase. I even know people who have spent 1000s to avoid paying a few hundred in tax, its barmy. Going out of pocket just to keep that government getting hands on the money.
The country is very out of balance right now, if you think about it we have had 40 years of right wing governments (blair's labour was centre right). It does need a left wing government to bring things in check, as people have kind of got used to right wing policies as been normal.
-
There is nothing wrong with raising taxes anyway, they are at a historical level very low and it is affordable.
Wrong. If there is an equilibrium and you upset it, there will be consequences. The Blair government’s raid on the pension funds being a perfect example.
I agree, Blair and Brown weren’t particularly left wing, just incompetent. But isn’t it slightly amusing that one reason the current extreme-left lot are unlikely to be able to fulfil their promise to nationalise BT is, in order to do so, they’d have to cope with the crippling BT pension fund deficit (circa £5billion last time I looked) caused entirely by the Blair government’s incompetence in raiding said funds?
-
Have the total taxes we pay really gone down though? The tax on my wages may have dropped, but my cars road tax has increased, my council tax has increased, vat is at 20%, we pay vat on gas, electric, insurance now, bound to be others to. Things such as parking at hospitals, council parking, paying to dispose of rubbish at the tip, my green garden bin has doubled in cost. We pay vat on fuel duty on petrol/diesel although that has been frozen, although I don't smoke duty on cigarettes has gone with good reason I think. Stealth taxes have probably risen.
Last thing I think we need is an extreme right wing government undoing all the hard work and borrowing trillions that has to be paid back.
-
Here's an interesting article on taxation written in 2017, not what I was looking for but still interesting.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/tax-burden-wealthy-has-trebled-since-1970s-telegraph-analysis/
-
There is nothing wrong with raising taxes anyway, they are at a historical level very low and it is affordable.
Actually, taxes are not at historically low levels and while there may be a case to raise them - its the wrong measure to look at.
What you should be considering is public spending as a % of GDP (https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending) - this is consistently higher than than the % collected in taxes - hence the annual deficit.
Its generally considered to be bad news for an economy if this figure is over 40% of GDP.
-
deficits are normal, the Tories spread the myth that having a deficit is some kind of disaster.
Sadly I think corbyn is now a bit too left wing for me, I like the green party policies but they not a major party.
What is interesting is that the tories in the 1970s were more left wing than labour in the 2000s. Thats how politics have shifted, when Blair was in power lib dems were more left wing than labour.
-
deficits are normal, the Tories spread the myth that having a deficit is some kind of disaster.
Having a government deficit is common in many countries and while not ideal is, as you say, is not a disaster.
Both Labour and the Conservatives have targeted balanced budgets for years but have hardly ever achieved this as short term political gain tends to prevail.
But again - the annual deficit is the wrong measure.
Whats important for an economy is the national debt as a % of GDP. It varies and is influenced by wars and economic cycles etc but when it goes above 80ish% its not good for an economy. That is what any UK political party in power post 2010 would have needed to address.
-
I agree thats an actual meaningful figure but bear in mind we have historically low interest rates as well meaning 80% of GDP in 2019 is not the same as 80% of GDP in 1990.
An economy doesnt just crash simply because public debt hits a certain %, whats more likely to be the link is that if public debt gets too high then a government may contract its spending to bring it down and that contraction that causes a negative effect on the economy rather than the % itself, and of course the increase in interest payments which some taxes go towards.
The problem I have tho is life is about a lot more than hitting debt targets, its no use hitting a target if you gutting your economy to do so, and sending millions into poverty. It is a bit like how some people think social security is a drain on the economy, something I have never understood given that people who get (means tested) social security payments are almost certainly going to spend it all in the local economy. The reason why the tories have put the biggest increase in decades on out of work benefits during their current term (whilst pretending they havent) is they will know themselves certain types of spending has a positive impact on the economy. But its a constant juggling act as so many people are incredibly resistant to paying taxes.
This country has lost track, what is the basis of our economy? we seem to be a nation of shopkeepers and bankers, we stopped building enough social homes, so now we also a nation of landlords as well, and if we talking about sorting out debt of GDP, a government needs to look at things like how much money is spent on housing benefits each year to subsidise private landlords. Thats why I considered this labour policy a joke as if you compare the housing crisis to something like giving people free broadband, it makes you realise how stupid the latter is. But sadly thats the modern world of politics, we have a two party system and both parties concentrate too much on bribes for the voters they targeting, for the tories its usually pampering to pensioners and cutting taxes for the upper classes, for Labour they often throw money at children and both parties have kind of lost the plot. Tax cut after tax cut is certainly not sustainable, its as if we trying to compete with the virgin islands. A tax cut is actually a form of spending. Even tho it may not seem so. The difference is tho when you apply a tax cut, its very hard to undo the change, as the population will be resistant to any rises, whilst its much easier to undo a budget increase. Imagine a party now trying to raise income tax up to say 25%, they wouldnt survive it. If you tried to explain its for the long term benefit of the country people just wouldnt understand.
Its going to take some kind of national disaster to correct politics. Like WW2 triggered the formation of the NHS as an example.
I think this is my last post in the thread on the politics, I know Eric moved it to chit chat but I dont want to ramble on here about politics. I will participate again if I have anything to say on the actual broadband policy itself.
-
Yeah, it kinda veered away from the broadband part, didn't it :D
-
Good post there Chrysalis, it makes a lot of sense.