Current Affairs The General Election

[zzr45]

Can both not be done?

It could, but is it really worth the £20bn to give people quicker internet when that could be spent on building homes, making home ownership actually within the financial grasp of more people and the money saved on renting, inflated house fees etc. could be spent on fast broadband or whatever else.

I get the need to connect to the rural locations that @NilSatisOptimum talked about before and that probably does need to be state lead, as the reason it isn't done already is more than obvious. I just don't think it's an issue that heading into 2020 is as big as is being made out.

 

[tsubaki]

If they appoint people who actually know about the issue at hand, for example, it will go a lot better than if they appoint their otherwise unemployable, quango-merry-go-round friends.

History tells us that governments of all stripes tend to go for the latter strategy.

They do, though one of the benefits of Corbyn is that nearly all the otherwise unemployable quango merry-go-round sorts are on opposing teams.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

They do, though one of the benefits of Corbyn is that nearly all the otherwise unemployable quango merry-go-round sorts are on opposing teams.

Call me a cynic but introducing a whole new cast of Baroness Scotland's or Jackie Ashleys but with chunkier beads into the food chain hardly seems an improvement.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It could, but is it really worth the £20bn to give people quicker internet when that could be spent on building homes, making home ownership actually within the financial grasp of more people and the money saved on renting, inflated house fees etc. could be spent on fast broadband or whatever else.

I get the need to connect to the rural locations that @NilSatisOptimum talked about before and that probably does need to be state lead, as the reason it isn't done already is more than obvious. I just don't think it's an issue that heading into 2020 is as big as is being made out.

Openreach, around October time, were claiming that full fibre broadband would benefit the UK to the tube of £80 billion.

 

[tsubaki]

Call me a cynic but introducing a whole new cast of Baroness Scotland's or Jackie Ashleys but with chunkier beads into the food chain hardly seems an improvement.

It wouldn’t be, if that is what happens - though it didn’t happen to anywhere near the extent it does now when we actually had nationalised utilities, so it isn’t guaranteed that it would now.

 

[zzr45]

Openreach, around October time, were claiming that full fibre broadband would benefit the UK to the tube of £80 billion.

Openreach Say Full Fibre Broadband Worth £59bn to UK Economy

A new Openreach commissioned report, created by the Centre for Economics & Business Research (CEBR), has estimated that connecting the whole of the UK to a

www.ispreview.co.uk

Not quite 80bn. A lot of those ‘benefits’ seem a bit fanciful as well. We already have the ability to work from home yet traffic on the roads is going up. It feels like investor wooing material rather than actually cast iron will be the benefit.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They do, though one of the benefits of Corbyn is that nearly all the otherwise unemployable quango merry-go-round sorts are on opposing teams.

Most new Labour MPs are trade unionists.

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

It could, but is it really worth the £20bn to give people quicker internet when that could be spent on building homes, making home ownership actually within the financial grasp of more people and the money saved on renting, inflated house fees etc. could be spent on fast broadband or whatever else.

I get the need to connect to the rural locations that @NilSatisOptimum talked about before and that probably does need to be state lead, as the reason it isn't done already is more than obvious. I just don't think it's an issue that heading into 2020 is as big as is being made out.

It's 20bn over 10 years, Labour already have ambitious plans to build more affordable homes and council house stock, that won't be affected by the broadband offer.

 

[tsubaki]

Most new Labour MPs are trade unionists.

Are you calling trade unionists “otherwise unemployable merry-go-round“ types?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

It could, but is it really worth the £20bn to give people quicker internet when that could be spent on building homes, making home ownership actually within the financial grasp of more people and the money saved on renting, inflated house fees etc. could be spent on fast broadband or whatever else.

Full fibre was already estimated upto £50 billion by Openreach before this progressive Labour policy... In modern UK being without broadband is really not attainable position anymore.

NHS is free but we still use private hospitals. It’s only the cheap home isps will go down. Businesses ISP and ISPs that do a premium service will be fine. My only concern would be a firewalled state only owned internet, but the Tories and Libs have been wanting that over the last 9 years, so I'll dismiss the sudden concern of impartial internet with hypocrisy and vigor it deserves.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Are you calling trade unionists “otherwise unemployable merry-go-round“ types?

I'm saying they're a special interest group who can result in services not being delivered with the best interests of customers in mind. The trade unions bankroll the party, and now dictate policy. If a special interest group (banks for instance) was doing that with the Tories, then I'm sure you would rightly argue that is not healthy. That you seem perfectly okay with unions having such influence over the policies of the entire country seems to be another example of you believing that those of like mind are somehow more righteous and less prone to rent seek than other sections of society.

 

[Charro]

Free broadband for all will be the norm in generations to come.

It's now a basic need, and should be freely available to the public. You could argue it already is in public libraries, but every household should have it free opf charge, it holds such an importance.

Interesting though how this thread has developed.

 

[peteblue]

Fake Nurse hey....

So Labour in Wales have produced a video of a ‘health worker’ saying that only Labour will save it from being sold to Donald Trump. It then turns out that the ‘health worker’ is in fact an actress.....numpties....

”In the advert, the woman says: 'We will increase the funding available to our health service.
'Labour is the party that created the NHS, and we will defend it against Tory attempts to sell it off for parts to Donald Trump.'
It then cuts to different people saying the words 'together' and 'standing up for Wales'.

Plaid Cymru slammed the 'fake nurse' for accusing the Conservatives of threatening the future of the NHS.

Plaid Cymru's Jonathan Edwards, who is standing for re-election in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, said: 'I can see why Labour felt they had to use a fake nurse in their political advert as their woeful record on the NHS in Wales means they have everything to hide.

The 30-second Labour Party election clip was broadcast on the BBC, ITV and S4C on Tuesday featuring a nurse wearing a NHS-issue blue tunic.

'Issues with the NHS Wales fall squarely at the door of the Labour Party who have been running it for decades.
'Plaid Cymru has a plan to properly invest in the Welsh NHS to recruit 10,000 more doctors and 5,000 more nurses. By the looks of it, Labour couldn't find one.'

hahahaha......

 

[abelard]

Boris Johnson is now speaking at the launch of the Conservative battlebus in Oldham.
He says Brexit will be like angioplasty. It will clear the arteries, and allow the government to focus on other projects.

And, just like routine surgery at the NHS these days, despite Tory promises it will be subject to months if not years of complications and delays.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm saying they're a special interest group who can result in services not being delivered with the best interests of customers in mind. The trade unions bankroll the party, and now dictate policy. If a special interest group (banks for instance) was doing that with the Tories, then I'm sure you would rightly argue that is not healthy. That you seem perfectly okay with unions having such influence over the policies of the entire country seems to be another example of you believing that those of like mind are somehow more righteous and less prone to rent seek than other sections of society.

You got to that from a point about the quangocracy ?

Also there is an awful lot there in your post that is wrong - the increase in Labour membership has actually resulted in Labour being *less* bankrolled by the unions than at almost any point in its history. The last report I saw had membership fees at more than twice the contribution from affiliated unions (members fees are even higher than donations, which also has union money in it).

This means that Labour is rather more influenced by its membership now, rather than special interests like unions, donors or whoever - so this claim that the unions are dictating policy isn’t really supported (for another example of this, look at McClusky’s efforts to stop a second referendum and prevent freedom of movement- they haven’t exactly worked despite Unite being the biggest donor).