You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We really need a campaign to get more of those being loosely described as ‘immigrants’ into mountain biking, starting with trail centres.
So, I hear there is an election on....
A more likely outcome is that the drive to manage costs and effeciency is lost
Costs and efficiency? With Privatisation? Ha Ha. You sound like you still believe its a good idea from the 1980's, when sensible people will have seen in the intervening years its been anything but.
Actual Privatisation has landed a killing blow on the ideology of privatisation.
Costs and efficiency? With Privatisation? Ha Ha. You sound like you still believe its a good idea from the 1980’s, when sensible people will have seen in the intervening years its been anything but.
Actual Privatisation has landed a killing blow on the ideology of privatisation.
I think there are some rose-tinted glasses regarding public ownership on this thread. Remember BL for instance?
Public ownership tends to result in stupid bureaucracy, jobsworth employees and a backwards attitude towards change and innovation. I witnessed this firsthand when I worked in HE and managed staff who were remnants of LEA control, from the time that the university was a college of HE. They were universally awful in a thoroughly institutionalised way.
A friend of mine is currently working on a major project with the civil service. He comes from the tech sector and can't believe how many barriers the civil service place in the way of seemingly simple decisions. I think a quote from Futurama sums it up:
"Don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in... We kept it grey!"
Funnily enough, I've never been an advocate of privatisation, especially of natural monopolies like water, but I'm also pragmatic and sensible enough (unlike some on here) to see that nationalisation isn't some sort of panacea.
JP
Question:
Is Johnson’s bridge to Northern Island getting the same attention and criticism as Corbyn’s takeover of OpenReach to make it deliver the infrastructure we need across the UK?
Public ownership tends to result in stupid bureaucracy, jobsworth employees and a backwards attitude towards change and innovation.
No, these happen because of idiot people at the top of organisations, as pretty much anyone who's ever worked in a large multinational can attest to, everything you describe of publicly owned is true of privately owned as well.
Well, it’s true of OpenReach for sure.
This single policy could win the election. If it doesn’t, then people are even more stupid than I thought.
I thought it was the least thought out, most ridiculous notion I had ever heard. I couldn't believe anyone could fall for such tosh; clearly designed to distract from real policy.
But there you are.
Services need to be in the public interest for them to be in state/public ownership, end of. For which I would decree that utilities and transport (rail, bus/coach) are brought under the public ownership banner first.
Someone above cited British Leyland and there are two key reasons why nationalising the British car manufacturing industry was a bad idea: Firstly, shite management - people promoted to levels of incompetence which is still endemic in business and commerce today. Secondly, the British work ethic, it’s pants and still is, it’s all about minimum input for maximum output. Both of these conspired at a time when the unions were also quite militant and created a toxic brew.
I’m not sure about bringing the monopoly that is BT under public ownership, I’m not sure what that would achieve apart from letting the private investors off the hook. Let them pay.
As for Royal Mail, bunch of **** wits, they completely missed the boat with email 20+ years ago and then spent years trying to compete by making first class mail unviably cheap. ****ers.
Can’t remember what else Labour are suggesting for nationalisation but I do believe that a good economy would have a healthy mix of private and state owned services, whereby the state ones are, as I said earlier, in the public interest to do so.
The Observers latest polling today has the Tory’s with a 16 point lead over Labour
A quite staggering achievement by Grandad and the assorted gaggle of clueless, voter-repelling muppets around him
Surely that must be a deliberate Partridge
LOLZ/TEARS
I’m not sharing any more of the interview, as I want people voting Labour. The “do you want the UK to Leave the EU” question and ‘answer’ section was particularly painful to watch.
That you double down on your stupidity is rather telling.
You utter retard.
Watch out! The politics of inclusion is here!
Which side is called the Nasty party? I've forgotten....
Snowflake.
Secondly, the British work ethic, it’s pants and still is, it’s all about minimum input for maximum output.
Perhaps if the notion of a fair days pay for a fair days work backed up with fairness in every other aspect wasn't so alien to many UK companies, then the workforce would be more invested in the companies they work for.
You utter retard
Kinder,gentler, politics coming through a bit there.
It’s not pretty, is it. Focus on something else.
Can’t remember what else Labour are suggesting for nationalisation but I do believe that a good economy would have a healthy mix of private and state owned services, whereby the state ones are, as I said earlier, in the public interest to do so.
You know, I agree with you there. But before I went around taking anything else into public ownership, I'd like to see the state make a success of the bits they already control. The utilities may not be perfect but they'll do as they are. Social care, parts of the health service, roads, policing,etc etc all need a lot more spent on them before we start taking anything else into public ownership.
I've never seen anyone from the North Western subcontinent of India at CyB?
I spent last night next to our MP, Conservative Steven Kerr of Stirling watching a kids music orchestra. The kids were great, he less so.
Thankfully he didn't ask how I was voting, and I didn't have the bottle to ask him his plans post election.
(we had less than 200 votes in it last time, and SNP are going to get it this time)
Social care, parts of the health service, roads, policing,etc etc all need a lot more spent on them before we start taking anything else into public ownership.
Social care is mostly privately supplied, at the moment, no? Are you suggesting nationalisation there, or more state owned providers competing against the private providers, or simply putting more money into the private provision? It’s a tough area to sort.
The OpenReach thing is about sorting out infrastructure that the country needs for economic reasons, not just social ones. It’ll cost the government to do it, but it’ll cost the country not to do it.
Dazh talking about free broadband :-
This single policy could win the election. If it doesn’t, then people are even more stupid than I thought.
Its people like me Labour should be targeting if they want to gain in the forthcoming election. I'm firmly remain at heart, strongly resent both the direction of the Conservative party and Boris's role in swinging the referendum result to leave. I'm a socially liberal, economically conservative, globalist, centre right voter. But I now have nobody to vote for, other than reluctantly voting Lib Dem. A labour party led by someone as radical as Corbyn with so many anti business policies and foolish nationalisation plans is a total anathema to me. Saving £30 a month on my bills isn't going to make a difference. Whereas I might well have held my nose and voted Labour if it was something like it was in the Blairite years.
Social care is in large part funded by local government is it not. It clearly needs more funding, I think the private sector is perfectly capable of providing the care, but it has to be paid for, for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves.
I take you point about a lack of infrastructure for broadband provision - although I think some here are overstaing the problem. But looking at the state of the roads as an example, I've no confidence that taking it into public ownership is going to help at all.
I suppose that highlights another issue for with the UK system, central government can selectively cut local council funding, then blame local councils for not making good use of the money.
That seems to be a popular tory trick.
My old man keeps banging on about sadiq Khan in London about knife crime and his failure to deal with it, whilst conveniently forgetting slashed budget's from the government.
But looking at the state of the roads as an example, I’ve no confidence that taking it into public ownership is going to help at all.
Broadband roll out also has lots of public money already going into it. That’s the thing, for so many services there is a different mix of public funding with private provision that may or may not work. With OpenReach, a near monopoly private provider, that takes public money, isn’t delivering what the country requires to play a leading role… but for so many people it is just a knee jerk reaction that taking it into full public ownership and control must be a “bad thing”, where, objectively, that might not be the case in this instance.
As a counterpoint to “roads”, I’d give you “Corrilian”. But as it happens, I personally approve of the idea of additional roads being built and maintained privately, and a toll charged.
There are plenty of other areas Labour have been taking the wrong approach about ownership of companies, for me, but I strongly suspect they might be dropped on Thursday.
My old man keeps banging on about sadiq Khan in London about knife crime and his failure to deal with it, whilst conveniently forgetting slashed budget’s from the government.
It's ok - the Tories have swept in with a genius plan to put knife crime advice on takeaway chicken boxes
And promising that they’ll fund the huge cost of training some new police recruits to replace some of the experienced staff they’ve been getting rid of.
Oh, but Scotland didn’t make the cuts to Police Numbers the Tories did in England and Wales. Let’s compare London & Glasgow for knife crime increases… shall we…
All these Conservative Party pledges to either undo the damage they’ve done, or to do what they promised in the last few elections but still haven’t delivered on, assume we have the memory of Goldfish.
Kelvin
In my opinion, the problem with many areas of capitalism today is not that they are inherently bad or inefficient but that new business methods and network effects, partly related to globalisation but also related to new technology have meant the the systems of control that worked for most of a century are now outdated and can easily be circumnavigated by the likes of Amazon, for example. So build new regulations and controls, that work for society overall in today's technological and geopolitical situation, without unnecessarily constraining the businesses or their profit seeking aims. The last few governments have been very bad at that, Labour's solution seems to try to destroy capitalism. That's not whats required - without capitalism we might all be a lot more equal but we would all be a lot poorer - I can't recall exactly who, but it was an Indian economist who once said - " Grinding poverty is perpetually sustainable." And without capitalism, we'd all be grindingly poor.
There's an awful lot you could do with ofcom to get openreach to sort their shit out, without the expense of re-nationalisation. They'd whinge like stuck pigs, obviously, but a private operations primary responsibility is to it's shareholders. Put the legislation in place and the shareholders will have to suck it up.
As for this being a policy that could win them the election - hahaha!
without unnecessarily constraining the businesses or their profit seeking aims
Go on… we have a monopoly private provider (created by the state) failing to supply the country with what it needs. It obviously has constraints put in place already, and they are not working. Why is it impossible that the best next move might be to take back full control and ownership of it?
Public provision of proper connections will help capitalism, especially new entrants, smaller operators, and geographically left out areas, make huge gains. The state providing infrastructure that private individuals and companies can make use of isn’t a new idea here, or elsewhere.
Its not impossible, but as Del says, its not necessary. And the evidence suggests ultimately it would be worse.
If you want to see the effect of this type of policy they’re proposing for the police, then watch the recent documentary ‘Crime and Punishment’ on channel 4
It’s a genuinely shocking and honest portrayal of the shambles that is the present UK prison system. They got rid of thousands of experienced prison officers and are now, as the entire system has collapsed into total chaos, desperately recruiting anyone who’ll do the job. On hugely reduced salaries, with virtually no training, obviously
Tory attitude in a nutshell. They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Perhaps Del is wrong. Perhaps experience shows us that sometimes regulating and subsidising a monopoly private provider isn’t always the best approach.
Whereas I might well have held my nose and voted Labour if it was something like it was in the Blairite years.
You may want a nice friendly face to put some shine on the failed policies of neo-liberalism, but some of us want rid of it.
Labour’s solution seems to try to destroy capitalism.
FFS. Labour is not proposing to destroy capitalism. Neither am I or any of the other pro-labour voices here. They're merely wanting to make it work for the people at large rather than a tiny few people at the top. We've had 40 years of politicians and economists telling us there is only one way, that people have forgotten that there is a different way of doing it.
A labour party led by someone as radical as Corbyn with so many anti business policies
What anti-business policies?
Most of the policies I can see are to the benefit of everyone, businesses, and the people who work for those businesses. Businesses are made of ordinary people, and when people's lives are better and easier they will be more productive. When the infrastructure is in place and works well business will run better. When employees have a stake in a business they run better.
Any idiot knows that people need a strong economy. Corbyn knows this and McDonnell certainly does. But letting fat cats skim all the profits off the top and **** the rest of us is NOT pro-business, it's pro-rich people. Big difference.
You utter retard.
That’s the kind of language a racist would use 🙂
OpenReach no longer being a “business” may well prove to be in the interest of thousands of other existing and new businesses, and those who work for them.
A good article by Will Hutton in today’s Observer pointing out that as the Tories have morphed into the Brexit party they have abandoned business
When Boris said ‘**** business, he clearly meant it.
They no longer represent ‘business’, they exclusively represent the interests of the people who now fund them ... hedge funds, venture/disaster capitalists, asset strippers and dodgy Russian Oligarchs. Nobody else. They genuinely couldn’t give a toss for agriculture, manufacturers or the service industries or the millions dependent on those industries for their livelihoods
That the Labour Party can’t even articulately point out this obvious fact, and present a decent case for being a better proposition for business is the most damning indictment of all of their utter cluelessness.
It’s an open goal FFS, but it’s yet again being spooned into row z by grandad and co
Its people like me Labour should be targeting if they want to gain in the forthcoming election. I’m firmly remain at heart, strongly resent both the direction of the Conservative party and Boris’s role in swinging the referendum result to leave. I’m a socially liberal, economically conservative, globalist, centre right voter. But I now have nobody to vote for, other than reluctantly voting Lib Dem.
I totally agree that Labour should be targeting people like you. However not by changing their policies to suit the centre, but by explaining how their policies can benefit people like you.
For example:
Saving £30 a month on my bills isn’t going to make a difference.
Aside from the fact that just because something doesn't benefit you directly isn't a great reason not to support it, getting free fast internet to the whole country helps children and adults with their learning. This can lead to an increase in skills and employment options.
£30 a month might not be much to you, but for many people it's a luxury that would be dropped quickly. Internet use is so important now for communication, lack of it can lead to isolation.
Free fast internet opens up working from home for more people. Business's who are struggling to find local talent have more options when internet access is universal.
For those companies running online shops and services, it opens up more customers.
The country would benefit as a whole from this policy, including you indirectly.
The country would benefit as a whole from this policy, including you indirectly.
I'm sure there is a case for tangible direct and indirect benefits - but the total likely cost (calculated properly), and what else could have been done with the money need to be included in that.
The money will be spent anyway. You are arguing that is better left for companies and individuals to pay their providers, and for them to pay OpenReach, who also get state subsidies, and who may or may not actually deliver to everyone else. That experiment has been ongoing for a long time now. It’s left the UK lagging behind. Time for bigger action. That might be “even more regulation” and “even more subsidies”, but I fully expect that would fail, based on what’s happened so far. Taking control and ownership, of this one particular state created infrastructure monopoly, needn't be controversial at all.
I think the maximum benefit to society from fast broadband will occur some way short of 100% access for all. That's not the same for the individual, but for society overall I suspect we can get all the benefits without 100% coverage. Its not like water or sanitation - it isn't a matter of life and death. And I'd far rather any spare money was spent social care, or housing, or mental health or indeed a ton of other things before we start splashing out on free broadband.
I used to think I would know when the Tories would be ****ed. It would be when they ‘lost’ two groups. The police and ‘business’.
They have ‘lost’ both those groups with their cuts and then craven deference to people who, in effect, are spivs, speculators and insider traders. People who look no further than the next trade (bet) and will stop at nothing to get an inside track. People who don’t give a shit what the effect will be on anyone but themselves.
And yet still, they look like they will win a majority.
Apparently they used to say that Thatcher was lucky in her enemies, Johnson must be pissing himself laughing (when Cummings says he can, obviously).
And I’d far rather any spare money was spent social care, or housing, or mental health or indeed a ton of other things before we start splashing out on free broadband.
We're talking about Labour. They will prioritise those things.
IF you want health, social care and housing to get money spent on it, vote Labour. Tories won't
Indeed. And the capital spend on infrastructure won’t just vanish… it’s not burning money… it’s investing… and employing…
And I, for one, am sick of state sponsored infrastructure aimed at core areas, rather than reaching all (or nearly all) of the UK. This is a policy that reminds the “left behind” (if you want to use that phrase) areas of the UK that they will not be forgotten under a Labour government in the way they are under a Tory one. There is some “causes of Brexit” thinking gone into this policy announcement I think.
That’s the kind of language a racist would use
No. The language a raciust would use is, unsurprisingly, your sort of language. Talking about being able to recognise immigrants and being a fan of eugenics.
I note you failed to provide evidence of me being racist but doubled down on your stupidity.
Taking control and ownership, of this one particular state created infrastructure monopoly, needn’t be controversial at all.
I am not convinced about the free bit.
The utter failure of Openreach despite taking several billion in subsidies from the taxpayer does indicate it might be better investing directly.
A sensible and controlled pricing strategy might make more sense than entirely free. That said even within the "free" definition there would be options for that eg capped limits which you pay to go beyond.
Moly
Its not the spending on social care etc,etc that prevents me from voting Labour. Its the unnecessary re nationalisation, the 10% appropriation of firms, the compulsory collective bargaining. What will happen is that tax revenues will fall as companies fail to invest and move their operations overseas. Trust in the UK government will fall in the international financial community, the UK's cost of borrowing will soar, and the cash , if it doesn't run out, will be severely constrained. For a recent case study see what happened in France in 1987 when Mitterand tried to impose a similar set of socialist policies. The value of the Franc fell by 50% in 2 years, as I recall. That, and the fact that Labour's leader is a friend of many of the UK's enemies, an enemy of its friends, a stooge to Russia, supports Leave, etc, etc. I just might vote for Labour if it weren't for all of that.
And Kelvin, even if it the broadband for all were rolled out, it would be questionable how many if any new jobs were created, and cable, once its in the ground isn't likely to be worth anything like what it cost to put it there. It would just sit in the ground becoming obsolete. See the history of building the canals and the initial railways for similar case studies.
You may want a nice friendly face to put some shine on the failed policies of neo-liberalism, but some of us want rid of it.
Is that why you are pro-Brexit?
That is half in jest actually. Seeing as dissonance and raybanwomble seem to be cosying up and are about to book a room, I thought I would cheekily try to pick a fight with you instead. Just for old time’s sake.
Is anyone going to actually bother going back on-topic, by the way? Looks like Joris Bohnson is going to walk it to a majority despite being a palpable fraud and an international laughing stock as well as a political lightweight in anything other than playground histrionics. Why is that?
That, and the fact that Labour’s leader is a friend of many of the UK’s enemies, an enemy of its friends, a stooge to Russia
Can you give me a quick list of whom our enemies are? The french?
My the Russians have got it sewn up from all sides haven’t they.
My the Russians have got it sewn up from all sides haven’t they.
Indeed they have.
No shit! Post Brexit London is just going to be an unregulated playground for Russian Oligarchs (and god knows who else) to launder their dodgy cash, all tax free, obviously
the Russians have got it sewn up from all sides
Something to agree on.
but doubled down on your stupidity
Speaking of doubling down...
Do you not think your language is distracting from whatever you think is the point you are making?
You know, if you turned down the abuse and focused on substance?
despite being a palpable fraud and an international laughing stock
Sadly, he's still better regarded than Labour's alternative. Crazy, but true
No. The language a raciust would use is, unsurprisingly, your sort of language. Talking about being able to recognise immigrants and being a fan of eugenics.
I note you failed to provide evidence of me being racist but doubled down on your stupidity.
You are the one mounting a defence of a blatantly racist idea. To say that you were just picking holes in an argument is obfuscation, stating that there are no immigrants clogging up CyB doesn’t make you racist does it? Defending the idea by attempting to legitimise the question that they might be, is much more likely to come from the mind of a racist yes?
It’s telling that early on in the argument I asked someone how they could tell the difference between tourists and immigrants - yet you choose to focus your nitpicking on the person trying to undermine the idea that immigrants are at fault for overcrowded trails.
the Russians have got it sewn up from all sides
https://twitter.com/cornishskipper/status/1196030750967156737?s=21
Do you not think your language is distracting from whatever you think is the point you are making?
Corbynista discourse pre October 2019 "Centrist red Tory Blairite scum! * off and join the Tories you **** traitors to the true way of all flesh!"
Post October 2019 - "Oh hi, love you. We've got free stuff. Aren't we cuddly and nice? Please vote for Jewwammy! "
Meanwhile… Andrea Leadsom is on the radio justifying her party’s “**** Business” approach with “companies don’t vote, people do” irrelevant populism. So it’s time to stop claiming that her Party are pro-Business, and that the alternative are anti-Business, as if nothing has changed since 2015.
Post October 2019 – “Oh hi, love you. We’ve got free stuff. Aren’t we cuddly and nice? Please vote for Jewwammy! “
They love the Jews now as well! It was all a misunderstanding - Corbynistas aren’t racist nationalists at all.
Corbynistas aren’t racist nationalists at all.
Messy, yes?
Meanwhile, locally…
But it does look like McCluskey, Milne, Murray & Co have got their way (we’ll find out on Thursday) and Labour will say Freedom or Movement of Workers will end… (of course that won’t apply to Millionaires like them, or Russian oligarchs). Labour members don’t want this, and Labour voters don’t want this, and the majority of the country don’t want this. But what do we get to vote for? Got to love our democratic process.
Gowrie
Its not the spending on social care etc,etc that prevents me from voting Labour. Its the unnecessary re nationalisation
Well unnecessary is a question of ideology. However I think it's bananas that the private sector runs monopolies, especially with state subsidies. Why should bosses of and investors in rail companies pocket loads of money that should be invested back into the network for our benefit? It's wrong.
the 10% appropriation of firms
That's a scare story from the right wing. No-one has said from Labour that the government will be appropriating anything. Labour have simply said 'firms will be required to transfer shares to employees gradually'. The government aren't 'taking' anything. Nowhere does it say current shareholders will be dispossessed. This idea is purely right-wing insinuation. Please do not fall victim to it, you do yourself a disservice. Personally I don't think it's a great policy, I don't think it will have much of an effect, but it's not theft.
What will happen is that tax revenues will fall as companies fail to invest and move their operations overseas. Trust in the UK government will fall in the international financial community
That has already happened because of the insane and incompetent actions of the Tory party in the last 4 years. You don't have to believe in everything that Labour want to do (although you do apparently believe in social provision) but you cannot for a second imagine that Johnson will be a credible alternative. We've already seen how reckless, careless and incompetent he and his party are. They DO NOT CARE about you, your elderly relatives, or anyone, and they DO NOT know how to run a country. You mean nothing to them.
Labour may or may not turn out to be incompetent too, but they are people who have spent their lives and careers trying to make things better for ordinary people. That is the reason the Labour party exists.
However I think it’s bananas that the private sector runs monopolies, especially with state subsidies.
Agreed. Especially where the state set up that Monopoly.
Please do not fall victim to it, you do yourself a disservice.
He’s not a “victim”… the proposal included the dividend for those “employee shares” going to the government, and the employees having no agency over those shares at all. Anyway, hopefully it’s been refined… we’ll find out Thursday. Changing it to a pure “employee representation on boards” with no part nationalisation by stealth, would take away a lot of the negative criticism of the policy I would hope.
Labour may or may not turn out to be incompetent too, but they are people who have spent their lives and careers trying to make things better for ordinary people.
Exactly. Better to have a party that is at least trying to improve matters and has the right intentions rather than a party that is blatantly trying to do the opposite. The spin and lies and bias can all be ignored, it is getting down to who you think is actually trying to fix things.
John Curtis on Radio4… it’s not just the one poll. The options are a Johnson majority or not now… do whatever needs doing to stop your local MP being another Conservative Brexit Party candidate, even if you would have voted Tory in the past. Johnson must be stopped, and your vote will not result in a Corbyn majority now, whoever you vote for.
Do you not think your language is distracting from whatever you think is the point you are making?
I was accused of being a racist simply because I questioned raybans casual comment that he could recognise immigrants. As such I think it is warranted.
I think you are wrong in thinking it's warranted. It looks like a guilty kneejerk over-reaction
From the outside, at least. From inside your head it must look fair comment.
Johnson must be stopped, and your vote will not result in a Corbyn majority now, whoever you vote for.
This thread is already feeling like we've skipped forward a few weeks and are getting stuck into the post-mortem meltdown (spoiler alert - five more years of Tory rule are all Binners' fault 🙂 ).
From the outside, at least. From inside your head it must look fair comment.
I guess you have more tolerance for being called racist than I do.
I'd use words and reason rather than abuse to make my point; that's all. And I agree, I must be more tolerant. I've been called all sorts that has just run off my rhino hide.
Anyway...
Labour's masterplan for Broadband is flawed anyway. What's the chance of getting everyone connected so everyone in the house can watch cat videos at once in 10 years? Zero. Openreach has been trying for years and not made a dent in it. And it won't be the outlier cases who get done first, it'll be the easy cable runs.
It would make more sense to nationalise Virgin media, and everyone has true fibre BB and a choice of supply.
Or roll out 5G and send everyone a hotspot in the post. Much simpler.
That's the problem with old people and technology, they just don't get it. Poor Jezza
Hey, boomer, you clearly have no idea what 5G rollout to “outliers” entails. Or that “true fibre” is exactly what Labour is proposing. Or that “Jezza” clearly didn’t formulate this policy. Go and put the kettle on and get the youngsters drinks…
I’d use words and reason rather than abuse to make my point; that’s all.
I did start with that but the torrent of abuse made me respond in kind. Probably a bad thing and I will give up on the muppet.
Or roll out 5G and send everyone a hotspot in the post. Much simpler.
Aside from the fact it doesnt work that way. The advantage of 5G is that it can handle higher load but the compromise made is with range. You need a lot higher density of masts to support it.
6G is supposed to deal with that but that is a few years off.
A hybrid approach probably does make sense though. Fibre and then high speed wireless would support a lot of places at lower cost and pretty much the same capability.
Given the flexibility of the industry though in phrases such as "fibre" and "up to" Labour have some room to play.
. Or that “true fibre” is exactly what Labour is proposing.
Agreed, boomer do you have any idea what your talking about?
It's almost as if you read a headline in the Mail & went with your standard knee jerk response
This thread is already feeling like we’ve skipped forward a few weeks and are getting stuck into the post-mortem meltdown (spoiler alert – five more years of Tory rule are all Binners’ fault 🙂 ).
What?! Again?!! Curses! Every time the country fails to become a socialist utopia, its always down to me, isn't it? 😉
Cursive also saying that Johnson polling better in Scotland and he may well hang on to most of the 13 seats up there. (Leave voting unionist scots got to go somewhere)
Labour meanwhile not doing so well against the SNP
The people on here still defending failed market driven policies...
Good god.
Have another five years. It will be medieval by then.
Enjoy the top of the neoliberal pyramid until you get knocked off.
Openreach has been trying for years and not made a dent in it.
That's because outside of government programmes anything Openreach does has to be 'commercially viable' as we found out. So miles of fibre to a remote Scottish island for 30 houses isn't commercially viable, so it won't get done. Or in our case, about 300 yards of fibre to serve a couple of hundred houses in a city doesn't make commercial sense either.
That's the point of nationalisation. I doubt many places would ever have had phones at all if it weren't for state owned BT. Although I'm not a historical telecomms expert so feel free to correct me.
Guardian article. (Katrina Forrester)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/18/crisis-in-liberalism-katrina-forrester?
Its throwing up some right weird old anomalies is this election. Particularly in Scotland and Norn Ireland.
The one thing that seems to be consistent though is that the labour parties 'don't mention the war' approach to not discussing Brexit and trying to talk about other stuff instead, simply isn't working. This election really is all about Brexit in a way the last one wasn't so exclusively.
The Labour leadership* needs to accept this and start stressing their policy of a second referendum. We know Grandad will only do that through gritted teeth while looking like he's in an ISIS hostage video, but its party policy whether he likes it or not. And one of the few that might actually win them some votes. But in his interviews at the weekend he's again still just as evasive and non-commital about the whole subject, as he is and always has been a committed Brexiteer. So when he's on the subject of a second referendum he just looks like Dot Cotton licking piss off a nettle
* the word is used figuratively in this instance etc....