[Politics] The General Election Thread

[Kinky Gerbil]

i dont understand this story. i wouldnt put it past the Conservative leadership, but why would they when BP have stood down half their candidates themselves??

Farage wants labour to win, or at least a hung parliament.

Rupert Lowe pulled out a few minutes before the deadline to go against the parties wishes.

All is not well

 

[BLOCK F]

Would that be the gullible 18 - 30 age group who think the grass is greener having not seen or experienced it in the past.

Probably; but also, I suspect there some like the ones on here, who are rather older than that, and are diehard Corbynistas.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Probably; but also, I suspect there some like the ones on here, who are rather older than that, and are diehard Corbynistas.

All the Tory press innit?

I mean Venezuela’s a great place. Don’t believe anything you read about what’s going on there....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

Probably; but also, I suspect there some like the ones on here, who are rather older than that, and are diehard Corbynistas.

I’d bet they were also diehard Blairites in 1997, diehard Kinnockists in 1992, diehard Callaghanists in 1979. Always following the Labour Party banner, no matter how left or centrist, in all those years refusing to truly check out the manifesto’s of alternatives such as the Greens (latterly) and Libs. Now the marxist version is suddenly alright.

 

[portslade seagull]

Because a nationalised BT in the hands of civil servants would be infinitely worse. Run by people who won’t have a clue and answerable to a Marxist chancellor. It’s a silly promise which will never happen anyway, there’ll be so many court challenges and amendments it’ll be stuck in legislation for years.

I’m also very interested to see how they would deal with BT’s pension deficit which is legacy of its nationalised past.

I find it so depressing that there are people on here who think this will actually happen and believe MCDonnell’s headline grabbing garbage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BT will definitely challenge it. That magic money tree is fecking humungous now the roots must reach Australia with all these promises being made

 

[JC Footy Genius]

[/INDENT]

If it's a profitable sector and they have the ability to maintain their own network, then yes, I wholly disagree.

In this scenario therefore, on broadband, do you agree the government should subsidise private profits?

So the answer is no you don't oppose government subsidies to private companies in all circumstances.

Depends if providing subsidies to private companies to encourage/incentivise them to roll out super high-speed broadband at a much faster rate including to non/less profitable rural areas is a better more affordable option than having the state do it.

 

[theonlymikey]

So the answer is no you don't oppose government subsidies to private companies in all circumstances.

Depends if providing subsidies to private companies to encourage/incentivise them to roll out super high-speed broadband at a much faster rate including to non/less profitable rural areas is a better more affordable option than having the state do it.

No I don't oppose all subsidies. I do oppose them in the telecom sector. If they're reliant on public money and the public can get it cheaper long term, then it's a good idea, non?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Probably; but also, I suspect there some like the ones on here, who are rather older than that, and are diehard Corbynistas.

Younger generations have some excuse for falling for the Socialist nirvana bollox as they haven't got much life experience and have probably had the misfortune to be 'educated' by teachers that in the main subscribe to the Guardian view of the world. The older ones have no excuse and should know better, unfortunately, they always assume they know what's best for the masses that they generally hold in contempt. It's also ironic that they don't realise their unswerving support for Corbyn's far left takeover of Labour has seriously damaged the chances of that once proud party gaining power. Any half decent centre left opposition would/should walk this election ...

 

[Guinness Boy]

Younger generations have some excuse for falling for the Socialist nirvana bollox as they haven't got much life experience and have probably had the misfortune to be 'educated' by teachers that in the main subscribe to the Guardian view of the world. The older ones have no excuse and should know better, unfortunately, they always assume they know what's best for the masses that they generally hold in contempt. It's also ironic that they don't realise their unswerving support for Corbyn's far left takeover of Labour has seriously damaged the chances of that once proud party gaining power. Any half decent centre left opposition would/should walk this election ...

Hilarious and (mostly) wrong. Owen Jones aside most on The Guardian can’t stand Corbyn and are also crying out for that half decent centre-left leader.

The irony of lecturing anyone over a certain age who supports Labour because they “generally hold the masses in contempt” is delicious!

However, there’s very little doubting your last sentence. It’s spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawros left foot]

BT will definitely challenge it. That magic money tree is fecking humungous now the roots must reach Australia with all these promises being made

Between 1945 and 1951, Clement Attlee’s Labour Government introduced the NHS,the welfare state,and child allowance, he nationalised the rail network, provided free secondary schooling, embarked on the largest house building programme ever,and enabled full employment.
This was when the country was broke by WW2.

And the Tories say we can’t afford free broadband.

 

[lawros left foot]

Hilarious and (mostly) wrong. Owen Jones aside most on The Guardian can’t stand Corbyn and are also crying out for that half decent centre-left leader.

The irony of lecturing anyone over a certain age who supports Labour because they “generally hold the masses in contempt” is delicious!

However, there’s very little doubting your last sentence. It’s spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If this centre left fallacy was true, why has Change ( are they still called that?) not polling at 30-40 percent.
The fact is, it’s another stick to beat Corbyn with. He’s not Tony Blair, get over it.

 

[beorhthelm]

No I don't oppose all subsidies. I do oppose them in the telecom sector. If they're reliant on public money and the public can get it cheaper long term, then it's a good idea, non?

telecoms are not reliant on public money. they can carry on as they are without assistance.

some think it would be good for broadband to be universal service, and this is not economical beyond certain scale (due to technology). so politicans are offering to pay for the additional uneconomic infrastructure.

interesting article on BBC asking whether broadband will be deprecated technology by 2030 anyway, replaced by 5G. (it wont, 5G tech is poor for coverage)

 

[beorhthelm]

Between 1945 and 1951, Clement Attlee’s Labour Government introduced the NHS,the welfare state,and child allowance, he nationalised the rail network, provided free secondary schooling, embarked on the largest house building programme ever,and enabled full employment.
This was when the country was broke by WW2.

And the Tories say we can’t afford free broadband.

with billions of borrowing to find a home, of course we can afford free broadband. why free broadband, rather than free roads, free rail, free water, [insert utility or service]? so we should wonder if there's another objective here.

 

[theonlymikey]

telecoms are not reliant on public money. they can carry on as they are without assistance.

some think it would be good for broadband to be universal service, and this is not economical beyond certain scale (due to technology). so politicans are offering to pay for the additional uneconomic infrastructure.

interesting article on BBC asking whether broadband will be deprecated technology by 2030 anyway, replaced by 5G. (it wont, 5G tech is poor for coverage)

I know they aren't reliant, which was my point. Why are we making unnecessary payments to this network when they're literally profiting. If the profits mean that much to thrm they'd pay it themselves. It's a bad deal for the public.

The plan would pay for itself in the long term. Open reach and Virgin have a right to be angry, however there not a lot they can do about it.

And the estimates they out forward at 4 times Labour's costings? It's almost like they're trying to scare the public off the idea with vested interests.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

I know they aren't reliant, which was my point. Why are we making unnecessary payments to this network when they're literally profiting. If the profits mean that much to thrm they'd pay it themselves. It's a bad deal for the public.

there are no unnecessary payments, politicans want an uneconomical service to be provided. normally if someone wants a service, you pay for it. if market cant provide and government want it, they need to pay for it. Labour want to own what they pay for, which isnt unreasonable, but also want to nationalise the rest of the industry and offer the service free. only utility to be offered for nothing. this is about nationalisation, not the service.

 

[Bodian]

with billions of borrowing to find a home, of course we can afford free broadband. why free broadband, rather than free roads, free rail, free water, [insert utility or service]? so we should wonder if there's another objective here.

Nearly all our roads are free to use. Just the odd toll-road or river crossing exists.

 

[beorhthelm]

Nearly all our roads are free to use. Just the odd toll-road or river crossing exists.

are you aware of vehicle excise duty? more revenue than spent on the road infrastructure (and thats before fuel duty).

 

[Bodian]

are you aware of vehicle excise duty? more revenue than spent on the road infrastructure (and thats before fuel duty).

Vehicle Excise Duty goes into the general national (central government) tax-take, as does fuel duty. Most roads are looked after by the local Highway Authority (generally the county councils or unitary authorities) who are mainly funded now by council tax and business rates - not from the central government funds. That is - very little of car related tax directly funds roads - none of it is ring-fenced.

Your analogy is like saying that smokers pay for the NHS. We all pay for all 'free' things through taxes one way or another.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Hilarious and (mostly) wrong. Owen Jones aside most on The Guardian can’t stand Corbyn and are also crying out for that half decent centre-left leader.

The irony of lecturing anyone over a certain age who supports Labour because they “generally hold the masses in contempt” is delicious!

However, there’s very little doubting your last sentence. It’s spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, which is why the Guardian supported Corbyn (On 8 June, Labour deserves our vote.) in the 2017 GE and they will do the same in this election.

If you have been following the last three years of posts on the Brexit thread (understandable if you haven't) you would have seen thousands of examples of Corbynistas/Lib dem types pouring contemptous scorn on the unwashed 'thicky gullible masses' because they cast a vote 'the wrong way' in the referendum.

 

[beorhthelm]

Your analogy is like saying that smokers pay for the NHS. We all pay for all 'free' things through taxes one way or another.

true, and so it'll be with telecoms. we'll for it some how.