Current Affairs The General Election

Voting Intentions

  • Labour

    Votes: 209 61.1%
  • Tories

    Votes: 30 8.8%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 20 5.8%
  • Brexit Gubbins

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • Greens

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Change UK, if that's their current moniker

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • DUP

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 2.6%
  • Alliance

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Some fringe party with a catchy name

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • A plague on all your houses

    Votes: 32 9.4%

  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a genuine question.. what has happened to the LD Brexit supporters? Apparently according to YouGov, 32% of LDs voted for Brexit. While this may be lower than the other main parties, its still 1/3rd of their support base. Now that they're basically an anti-Brexit movement, have the former LD-Brexiters deserted them?
He managed to get a date, got laid and doesn't like them anymore mate. At all.
 
Because the polls have them at 16%, with Swinson herself comparable to Corbyn in the 'who would you like to be the next PM' stakes.

That's fine bit she's substantially behind on the polls. Some have her a lot lower than 16%. Do you include Farage in the polls given he's at 8% in some?

There is a massive hap between the two biggest parties, and the next biggest is the SNP in terms of MP's.
 
It's based on the figures from Ofcom - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-tel...vice-for-consumers/broadband-uso-need-to-know - which place the costs about 5x what Labour believe it can be done for. BT dispute the Ofcom figure, suggesting even that might not be enough, especially in harder to reach areas. I'd say you have a point if Ofcom were broadly agreeing with Labour, but they're not, so it kinda begs the question where on earth Labour got their figures from if they're so wildly different to that of the regulator.

Fair enough, and thanks for the citation. I don't know an awful lot about it, but will have a look at the manifesto to see how they've arrived at said figures and if they are credible. There's a lot of frankly ludicrous scaremongering going on (not least the Conservatives plucking numbers out of thin air for a manifesto they hadn't seen).
 
It's based on the figures from Ofcom - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-tel...vice-for-consumers/broadband-uso-need-to-know - which place the costs about 5x what Labour believe it can be done for. BT dispute the Ofcom figure, suggesting even that might not be enough, especially in harder to reach areas. I'd say you have a point if Ofcom were broadly agreeing with Labour, but they're not, so it kinda begs the question where on earth Labour got their figures from if they're so wildly different to that of the regulator.

That link doesn't seem to show any figures ?

However, https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...e-cost-of-deploying-full-fibre-broadband.html does

In that it's talking about £500 per unit for the first 20 million properties ( so ~ 10 billion ), rising to £2500 per unit above that, and would need a subsidy from govt to do the last 10% of property

I think the £500 per property was based on doing a fair amount of digging, but I think that since then Ofcom have estimated that if they forced BT to allow sharing of their tunnels, then that cost would drop to about £250 / unit - so, given Openreach would be nationalised, sharing their tunnels is now no big deal, that drops down to ~ 5 billion for the first 20 million. I reckon that still leaves ~ 30 million properties to get a supply to, at say, an average of £1000 a go, that'd be another 30 billion, so you might squeeze it down to 35 billion overall. Chances are it'll overrun on time and cost, so lets call it 50 to 60 billion.

However, the Scots want independence, so let 'em have it, and lets save ourselves a few billion. They're happy enough with their R100 programme ( to deliver something like 35 megabit download to all properties ), so lets leave them to it, and, to be fair, what they're setting out to achieve on broadband for everyone is far more sensible and pragmatic, but not quite as gimmicky, as Labour's plans. Call me stupid it you like, but I'd rather invest the majority of that sort of money in education and lower the sights somewhat on broadband.
 
It's based on the figures from Ofcom - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-tel...vice-for-consumers/broadband-uso-need-to-know - which place the costs about 5x what Labour believe it can be done for. BT dispute the Ofcom figure, suggesting even that might not be enough, especially in harder to reach areas. I'd say you have a point if Ofcom were broadly agreeing with Labour, but they're not, so it kinda begs the question where on earth Labour got their figures from if they're so wildly different to that of the regulator.

They got it from the government's own figures published a while back.

I can't find the link but here are a couple from - of all places - the private sector:


That report was from 2008 but even taking the highest figure and adjusting for inflation, it's nowhere near £100bn.

This one from 2017 puts the cost between£9.9bn and £34.5bn depending on quality and 100% coverage:


But yeah. Let's all go along with the hype.

The £100bn figure is based on bonuses for executives and shareholder dividends for the monopoly that is BT Openreach, I would imagine.

It's funny that a privately owned monopoly is good for the public but a publicly owned one isn't.
 
The thing is of course that many twenty somethings have no interest in Pensions

I have an interest in pensions.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have destroyed them.

You cannot have pensions without interest rates, and you cannot have interest rates without demand.

But the coalition, ignoring every macroeconomic expert, decided to deliberately weaken demand at the height of a historic financial crash - an unfathomably ignorant and destructive decision which haunts us still.

Ten years on, the BoE is %.75, far lower than inflation, and in the Eurozone rates are mostly negative.

For pension funds (where I used to work) this is an unprecedented catastrophe.

Pension fund managers want nothing more than safe, stable, long term growth - which the coalition destroyed in a fit of ideological fervour.

So now fund managers are, with great reluctance, forced to chase returns in increasingly risky places - private equity, corporate leveraged loans, real estate bubbles and tech moonbeams.

The fact that even the grown-up money has been forced into investments which it knows are nonsense will be the story of the next financial crash, and it is going to be far, far worse than the last one.


If interest rates do not recover, we can expect banks, especially in Europe, to start coming up against it in the next few years - possibly just as the great global omnibubble starts to give way.

Meanwhile, 'responsible' politicians are coming out with punch lines like this:
Probably the most illiterate, demagogic, and disastrous campaign utterance yet, in an election where Boris Johnson is a candidate.

The intellectual emptiness of our liberal political class is breathtaking.

So I will be voting for Labour, because I know a little bit about how pensions work, and because Labour is the only party that understands macroeconomics.

There will be grumbles about Labour phasing out PFI scams and other low-hanging fruit, but anyone in the pension industry with a bit of longer-term pespective and nous would crawl over hot coals for the chance to fund Labour's remodernisation of the economy, and the return to sane interest rates that this will entail.
 
Scrapping tuition fees is an utterly ridiculous policy. One of the worst going around.

The current system is fine. And I say that as someone who pays a bit back every month.

You get your loans and it's free at the point of use. You dont even physically hand over any money. Its done by the student loans company. You pay back at a pretty low rate only when you can afford to. It's like 9% of everything over about 18k. Then the residual is written off after 25 years.

It's a graduate tax to all intents and purposes and it's very fair. Why should my parents who did not go to university and have worked hard all their lives pay even more for my privilege.

If anything I think us graduates should possibly be made paid back slightly more. Not the government giving it to us for free.

Did I read this correctly? You're paying 9% interest??? And you're happy about this? At a time when the Bank of England interest rate is 0.75%?

Even if you accept that students should pay the cost in full of their university education, why not a policy of just repaying the premium? Why impose not only interest rates, but interest rates (as far as I can make out) at 5.4%, six times the BoE rate?

I hope you kept your receipt, because a degree from whichever institution failed to provide you with the wherewithal to spot that this is a massive subsidy/handout to the financial industry doesn't seem worth much.

And as your for tax-paying parents, they will actually be on the hook (to the finance sector rather than to students) for much more from the Tory/Lib Dem scheme than they would be had the government just covered your tuition up front in full like before.

 

''Welcome to the Conservative party election campaign. I have been a political reporter for almost three decades and have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson. Or gets away with his deceit with such ease.''

The media in this country are rigging this election by not doing their job properly.
 
Scrapping tuition fees is an utterly ridiculous policy. One of the worst going around.

The current system is fine. And I say that as someone who pays a bit back every month.

You get your loans and it's free at the point of use. You dont even physically hand over any money. Its done by the student loans company. You pay back at a pretty low rate only when you can afford to. It's like 9% of everything over about 18k. Then the residual is written off after 25 years.

It's a graduate tax to all intents and purposes and it's very fair. Why should my parents who did not go to university and have worked hard all their lives pay even more for my privilege.

If anything I think us graduates should possibly be made paid back slightly more. Not the government giving it to us for free.

Why should I pay for a smoker's cancer treatment? I've never smoked in my life. Why should I pay towards schools? I don't have children...

Quite incredible you want to actually pay more back when our fees are among the highest in Europe. Do you not look at other countries who pay practically nothing with envy? Do you not wonder why they (countries not as wealthy as us) can afford to invest in their young people and we can't?

I will be paying £90+ back for the rest of my working life every month and still won't repay the full amount. I just about manage now, this is without a mortgage, a car or kids. So maybe you lead a comfortable enough life but for many graduates like me that money would go a long way.

I even had a colleague paying his loan back that had to lend money from his parents to eat a few months ago. So the idea that you actually want us to pay even more for what I found to be an extremely poor course is crazy.
 
Last edited:
Why should I pay for a smoker's cancer treatment? I've never smoked in my life. Why should I pay towards schools? I don't have children...

Quite incredible you want to actually pay more back when our fees are among the highest in Europe. Do you not look at other countries who pay practically nothing with envy? Do you not wonder why they (countries not as wealthy as us) can afford to invest in their young people and we can't?

I will be paying £90+ back for the rest of my working life every month and still won't repay the full amount. I just about manage now, this is without a mortgage, a car or kids. So maybe you lead a comfortable enough life but for many graduates like me that money would go a long way.

I even had a colleague paying his loan back that had to lend money from his parents to eat a few months ago. So the idea that you actually want us to pay even more for what I found to be an extremely poor course is crazy.
£90+? Christ you get screwed over don't you?

The problem is that student debt was envisioned with the idea you'd go to uni and come out to a job worth £30k within a few years. That hasn't happened.
 
£90+? Christ you get screwed over don't you?

The problem is that student debt was envisioned with the idea you'd go to uni and come out to a job worth £30k within a few years. That hasn't happened.

Yeah, and the company have been a complete nightmare for me to deal with as well. Constantly sending threatening letters telling me I´m in arrears.
 
Did I read this correctly? You're paying 9% interest??? And you're happy about this? At a time when the Bank of England interest rate is 0.75%?

Even if you accept that students should pay the cost in full of their university education, why not a policy of just repaying the premium? Why impose not only interest rates, but interest rates (as far as I can make out) at 5.4%, six times the BoE rate?

I hope you kept your receipt, because a degree from whichever institution failed to provide you with the wherewithal to spot that this is a massive subsidy/handout to the financial industry doesn't seem worth much.

And as your for tax-paying parents, they will actually be on the hook (to the finance sector rather than to students) for much more from the Tory/Lib Dem scheme than they would be had the government just covered your tuition up front in full like before.


The real irony is many people who sign up to such a deal are children aged 17 at the point of agreement. If you sold a car, or a bank loan on that basis in the manner they do it would be a major PPI scandal. You'd never get away with selling anything else, in that way to an under 18.
 
£90+? Christ you get screwed over don't you?

The problem is that student debt was envisioned with the idea you'd go to uni and come out to a job worth £30k within a few years. That hasn't happened.

Yes very good point. At a point where better paid (starting) jobs declined the number of students went up. Few economies are churning out 30k+ jobs for 50+% of young people.

The school sector alongside the government have a lotto answer for here. There is enormous pressure placed upon people to go to university. And you have a layer of parents who believe university is an exclusive club that allows for social mobility (which is was when they were around) yet the reality is there is a huge awakening coming over the coming years when people realise there's no magic bullet.

I'd also add, there is going to be a massive black hole of finances in the future years because of this ill thought through system of successive right of centre governments. However they will accept no responsibility for this, even though they now have ample chance to reform the system, and will no doubt blame the left when it comes to a head.

9% interest on 50k p/a is 4.5k. You pay back around 9% of earnings over 21k. So before you are getting to the capital, you need to £66,000 p/a.How many young people are going to be paying back these loans?
 
Yes very good point. At a point where better paid (starting) jobs declined the number of students went up. Few economies are churning out 30k+ jobs for 50+% of young people.

The school sector alongside the government have a lotto answer for here. There is enormous pressure placed upon people to go to university. And you have a layer of parents who believe university is an exclusive club that allows for social mobility (which is was when they were around) yet the reality is there is a huge awakening coming over the coming years when people realise there's no magic bullet.

I'd also add, there is going to be a massive black hole of finances in the future years because of this ill thought through system of successive right of centre governments. However they will accept no responsibility for this, even though they now have ample chance to reform the system, and will no doubt blame the left when it comes to a head.

9% interest on 50k p/a is 4.5k. You pay back around 9% of earnings over 21k. So before you are getting to the capital, you need to £66,000 p/a.How many young people are going to be paying back these loans?

In my group of mates, all 6 of us went to university and it´s pretty obvious none of us will ever pay the full amount back. I´m sure the majority of people are the same.
 
I have an interest in pensions.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have destroyed them.

You cannot have pensions without interest rates, and you cannot have interest rates without demand.

But the coalition, ignoring every macroeconomic expert, decided to deliberately weaken demand at the height of a historic financial crash - an unfathomably ignorant and destructive decision which haunts us still.

Ten years on, the BoE is %.75, far lower than inflation, and in the Eurozone rates are mostly negative.

For pension funds (where I used to work) this is an unprecedented catastrophe.

Pension fund managers want nothing more than safe, stable, long term growth - which the coalition destroyed in a fit of ideological fervour.

So now fund managers are, with great reluctance, forced to chase returns in increasingly risky places - private equity, corporate leveraged loans, real estate bubbles and tech moonbeams.

The fact that even the grown-up money has been forced into investments which it knows are nonsense will be the story of the next financial crash, and it is going to be far, far worse than the last one.


If interest rates do not recover, we can expect banks, especially in Europe, to start coming up against it in the next few years - possibly just as the great global omnibubble starts to give way.

Meanwhile, 'responsible' politicians are coming out with punch lines like this:
Probably the most illiterate, demagogic, and disastrous campaign utterance yet, in an election where Boris Johnson is a candidate.

The intellectual emptiness of our liberal political class is breathtaking.

So I will be voting for Labour, because I know a little bit about how pensions work, and because Labour is the only party that understands macroeconomics.

There will be grumbles about Labour phasing out PFI scams and other low-hanging fruit, but anyone in the pension industry with a bit of longer-term pespective and nous would crawl over hot coals for the chance to fund Labour's remodernisation of the economy, and the return to sane interest rates that this will entail.

Excellent post, but while Interest rates under Labour would undoubtedly raise, so too will inflation. Now people with mortgages quite like inflation because the ratio of house price to mortgage debt grows. Those not on the property ladder however suffer accordingly. Inflation proofed pensions and payments are wonderful but again not everyone enjoys the same benefits and many will be left behind. I agree that there are pro’s and con’s but my initial comment was about the effect on pension funds investing in the likes of BT who will suffer.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top