Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
That's just common sense we can't have that.
That's way less than I'm paying now for superfast broadband.
Me for one.
Labour say the plan would be finish in 2030. The Green New Deal Labour will put forward really should be the standard most western countries take towards climate change.
I really try to understand the worries a lot of people have about the Labour Party but if we just take a step back and look, the truth is we can't simply afford mild gradual action. Also Jippy you've done the boring tory shite for long enough, come on and have a little bit of fun now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
They do now so what's the difference.
Could only happen when you have full employment of skilled workers. Back in the 70's you could walk out of a job in the morning and into another one in the afternoon. Thatcher stopped that not by passing laws on unions but by destroying industry.
indeed.
Well, I'm never voting Tory again, so my vote is Labour's to lose.
I just don't think the BT part-nationalisation is well thought through.
I also think you're conflating the BT plan with the green new deal. Can't see the linkage, given accessing broadband requires loads of power being guzzled.
I've successfully turned a non voter who thought 'they're all as bad as each other' in to a Tory hating voter.
But you need to look at the industry that you say she destroyed. Vast swathes of factories in the midlands producing what? Springs, washer, nuts, bolts .. penny-a-bucket parts. Yes they employed people but it was never sustainable. This stuff was always going to go go to low-cost developing countries.
Do you not think that this is being done already. Overtly or covertly.
If this racist, vile human being is endorsing the Conservatives then they really need to take a look at themselves.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Seems to be a common theme with Labour policy. Manifesto due out next week, the foreword rumoured to be by Lewis Carroll.
You can look at the whole renationalisation narrative as a win for Labour. They’ve managed to put Brexit on the back burner for now which was always what they wanted. I heard Nicky Morgan and Micheal Gove on the radio yesterday and today and they were both absolutely desperate to try and get the narrative back on Brexit, even though they were asked about Broadband and tree planting as an environmental policy.
That's just not true. F. H. Lloyds for one was a massive foundry group that had plants all over the country.
Obviously I like the idea of free broadband because frankly who wouldn't?
Labour's figures on the cost of running said broadband seem to be optimistic well beyond the point of being deliberate untruths though, which is quite an issue when placed alongside all the more immediately apparent issues with the idea.
Though I suppose downplaying the negative consequences of a vote-grabbing policy is entirely par for the course in UK politics. Not like that could have any negative impact on the country.
Labour's figures on the cost of running said broadband seem to be optimistic well beyond the point of being deliberate untruths though, which is quite an issue when placed alongside all the more immediately apparent issues with the idea.
Though I suppose downplaying the negative consequences of a vote-grabbing policy is entirely par for the course in UK politics. Not like that could have any negative impact on the country.
Is he talking in handcuffs
I was just using it as a way to hit back against the mild and gradual plan stuff. We can't fight climate change with gradual change.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
But yeah they aren't a bunch of tories for some reason. Can someone explain why anyone who considers themselves on the left(Or even New Labour-ish)would vote for this lot. Is the pull of eu face paint that strong ?
Is it true that the Bolton fire had a similar cladding to Grenfall on the outside? If so that is a disaster for the Tories in s political sense, the first priority should of course be with the victims.
Because they're the party of remain, the party of the environment, party of the NHS, party of small government, party of common sense
Party of completely misreading the room.
Probably chucking my vote away at the Greens this time.
All votes are chucking away
True enough.
Err...
True, even if Labour don't win this election (and it's incredibly unlikely they will), the fact we've got a major party floating ideas that would have been seen as unpalatable but are actually quite popular in reality seems quite significant. Voters are now aware that these policies are potentially achievable.
I'm guessing he is joking(Or at least I hope so).
Sorry don't really understand this, they are 'potentially achievable'... why, how, because Jeremy said so?
Desirable maybe, potentially achievable is another matter. "Free" (at the point of delivery) is also a relative term in these circumstances, just like the NHS, nothing is free, we all pay, some more than others, through taxation. Just like the statement "polluters should pay", then 'users' should also pay, whether its railways, broadband or whatever, anything given free is rarely valued and sub-standard service becomes acceptable as people think "well its free, what can you expect."
Talk about turning the clock back, Corbyn and Macdonell at times seemed to be sensible people, then all of a sudden they leap into a time warp.
Potentially achievable insofar as politicians are advocating for these ideas and thus normalising them. While Labour aren't going to win by the looks of it, the policies themselves are popular and therefore could be vote winners in future elections.
The NHS is, if anything, actually an example of why policies being advocated by Labour can be implemented: if you're wary of the government ensuring free broadband for all, then if it didn't exist already you'd likely be dismissive if a nationalised health service where most provisions are free at the point of use. We're aware we pay for them through taxation, yes, that's hardly new; the idea is that if a privatised service isn't necessarily working for people (like broadband, which is currently shit) then a government taking control of that service have a greater obligation to ensure it works for the public, because if they don't then they'll get voted out. In that regard, the "sub-standard" comment doesn't really wash: across swathes of the country railway services aren't very good even though people pay a lot for them. It's also a sector where there's ultimately not that much of an incentive for improvement; it's hard to introduce competition because I can't decide to just operate my own rail companies on lines already occupied.
Whether it's actually worth, say, providing free broadband for everyone is another debate that I'm all for having, but the idea it's somehow not achievable is ridiculous.
Ed Davey was saying the other day on 5Live that thanks to the Lib Dems, Scotland has made the UK the offshore wind farm capital of the world. Twice. So even if yer man is being sarcastic here the Lib Dems are delusional enough to believe that they have never done anything wrong and are responsible for everything great.
It certainly is another debate!
I was however asking what grounds did you have for saying it was 'potentially achievable' and your answer seems to be that if the politicians keeping talking about it, then it will become so. We are therefore it seems back to Jeremy's 2019 GE 'Epistle' on Broadband for everybody.
Do you genuinely not think that free broadband is not a policy that could be implemented by a national government in any form whatsoever?
A whole country taxpayer funded roll-out of full fibre didn't exactly go very well when Australia tried to do it. A calamitous train wreck of a project that went over double the budget and delivered nothing but slower speeds.
People should realise by now that there are no politicians who understand the first thing about the internet or the infrastructure that supports it.
People should realise by now that there are no politicians who understand the first thing about the internet or the infrastructure that supports it.
Not simply by keep talking about it... No!
Any or all Policies need to have implementation plans, and those which plan to eventually give away free the product asset generated they definitely need implementation plans(with risk assessments) to be clearer still. Apart from finding £20B through borrowing, or at least that's what they have said, to fund this policy, how it will be rolled out is quite sketchy and sets up massive financial and as well as technical hurdles, renationalisation, off grid provision, delivery in house (i.e. does everyone without laptop, get one free as well?)
To be honest its a headline grabbing attempt to shoot one of Boris's foxes, and its has had limited success, but if I were Jeremy I would play it down a bit now, move on to other things, before Andrew Neild, Emily Matlis and co, start applying the thumbscrews.
So your answer is yes, then, if the planning is correct.
Geographically speaking, rolling out broadband across a country as vast as Australia is going to be completely different and more difficult to doing so in the UK.
The reality is the work will still be carried out by the likes of Openreach, just as it is now... but under public ownership. The current issue is that BT are not interested in expanding the network to areas where it isn't economically beneficial to do so. Not so long ago I was living in a town centre just 100 yards from the main train station and couldn't get fibre broadband. When I contacted Openreach they would just say it was in the pipeline but 3 years later, still nothing. I've just checked and now over 5 years on, still no fibre to that postcode and it has even changed to "we don’t have plans to upgrade your area yet."
I really can't understand how anyone could be against upgrading important infrastructure in this country... do we just want shit things?
That's not incorrect
I believe the state already subsidise Openreach to an extent anyway, so it's not as if this is an area into which the government put no money.
And since coverage is often dreadful in rural areas as you mentioned, it's probably worth noting that improved broadband coverage could potentially boost businesses in non-urban areas - low internet speeds and poor connectivity would no longer be as much of a problem.
- Status