Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
98elise said:
This is the problem with state control. You get Corbyn's version of what you should have (and pay for one way or another).
A free market is driven by what people actually want and are willing to pay for.
State controlled telecoms was dire as a few others here will remember. You got one wired phone, and for a long while one style of phone only which you rented. It took ages to get anything done.
Free broadband is simply not needed. Everyone has a phone these days, with enough data to do everything "essential".
88% have a broadband connection in any case (not including smartphones) according to ONS 2018.A free market is driven by what people actually want and are willing to pay for.
State controlled telecoms was dire as a few others here will remember. You got one wired phone, and for a long while one style of phone only which you rented. It took ages to get anything done.
Free broadband is simply not needed. Everyone has a phone these days, with enough data to do everything "essential".
98elise said:
State controlled telecoms was dire as a few others here will remember. You got one wired phone, and for a long while one style of phone only which you rented. It took ages to get anything done.
Free broadband is simply not needed. Everyone has a phone these days, with enough data to do everything "essential".
Still, I suppose those that can remember are the older generation which are more typically Conservative voters while the "yoof" so it's another great giveaway to his fans rather than broadening appeal. Free broadband is simply not needed. Everyone has a phone these days, with enough data to do everything "essential".
Had an interesting experience last night, boarded a train at Euston (everything was running late/cancelled due to flooding).
Halfway along the journey I got chatting to the chap across the carriage from me who was heading to Birmingham. The conversation turned to politics as were merrily chatting away. One mention of the word Conservative and the chap behind us, got up and walked further down the carriage muttering that he wasn't sitting near bloody Tory's.
The chap I was chatting to was Indian and i'd say mid 50s and as it turned out a self proclaimed immigrant who amongst other things wanted controls on immigration. Having smirked at the chap who had decided he couldn't sit next too/near conservatives we had a good conversation about the election.
Both of us said, it was a shame he didn't join as we'd have welcomed opposing thoughts/view points but he just threw his toys out of the pram
Halfway along the journey I got chatting to the chap across the carriage from me who was heading to Birmingham. The conversation turned to politics as were merrily chatting away. One mention of the word Conservative and the chap behind us, got up and walked further down the carriage muttering that he wasn't sitting near bloody Tory's.
The chap I was chatting to was Indian and i'd say mid 50s and as it turned out a self proclaimed immigrant who amongst other things wanted controls on immigration. Having smirked at the chap who had decided he couldn't sit next too/near conservatives we had a good conversation about the election.
Both of us said, it was a shame he didn't join as we'd have welcomed opposing thoughts/view points but he just threw his toys out of the pram
Puddenchucker said:
So why stop there?
Why not free electricity, free water, free housing, free transport?
Socialist utopia here we come....
Of all things, privatised water has to be the most ludicrous thing known to man. It's not a competitive market, I can't change supplier, I can't bargain a better deal, and the feasibility of not using the water grid (private bore hole, private sewage storage) is beyond the means of 99% of the population (and probably isn't beneficial to society if there was high uptake in urban areas).Why not free electricity, free water, free housing, free transport?
Socialist utopia here we come....
What reasons are there for it being private?
Evanivitch said:
dazwalsh said:
Free wifi for everyone? What will the fallout be from that? Thousands of job losses, a hefty sum to privatise BT and a piss poor service.
It's all getting a bit surreal and dangerous.
f
king lunatics.
I don't think that's quite the intention.It's all getting a bit surreal and dangerous.
f
king lunatics.turbobloke said:
88% have a broadband connection in any case (not including smartphones) according to ONS 2018.
But what about the people that accidentally (and entirely unavoidably) live in the middle of nowhere? Shouldn't we all spend millions to dig channels to every house miles from the nearest town or village? Why should people have to take into account broadband coverage when they choose where to live? Everyone else should just foot the bill for massively inefficient infrastructure.ORD said:
turbobloke said:
88% have a broadband connection in any case (not including smartphones) according to ONS 2018.
But what about the people that accidentally (and entirely unavoidably) live in the middle of nowhere? Shouldn't we all spend millions to dig channels to every house miles from the nearest town or village?Under the typical incompetence of Labour mismanagement "we all spend millions" would come true, via additional taxes and interest on govt loans; the payment burden would arrive heavily and in timely fashion through the working lives of those who are currently students thinking of voting Labour.
ORD said:
Why should people have to take into account broadband coverage when they choose where to live? Everyone else should just foot the bill for massively inefficient infrastructure.
Apart from freedom of choice, see above and previous posts from tech PHers..Evanivitch said:
Of all things, privatised water has to be the most ludicrous thing known to man. It's not a competitive market, I can't change supplier, I can't bargain a better deal, and the feasibility of not using the water grid (private bore hole, private sewage storage) is beyond the means of 99% of the population (and probably isn't beneficial to society if there was high uptake in urban areas).
What reasons are there for it being private?
One very good reason is that when the disposal of sewage and the policing of effluent discharges were the responsibility of the same intransigent public sector body, the rivers were absolutely filthy. Splitting out the regulatory function into the public sector NRA and the service provision into the private sector water companies resulted in discharges being policed and the quality of river water improving immensely.What reasons are there for it being private?
ORD said:
turbobloke said:
88% have a broadband connection in any case (not including smartphones) according to ONS 2018.
But what about the people that accidentally (and entirely unavoidably) live in the middle of nowhere? Shouldn't we all spend millions to dig channels to every house miles from the nearest town or village? Why should people have to take into account broadband coverage when they choose where to live? Everyone else should just foot the bill for massively inefficient infrastructure.My broadband is fantastic, but it is through an ariel on the roof of the house to a mast on the top of the local church
In fact its much better than when I lived in a town and had it on a line
ORD said:
turbobloke said:
Apart from freedom of choice, see above and previous posts from tech PHers..
I am taking the piss.100% broadband coverage (let alone fibre to the home) is beyond stupid. It is throwing money down a well for political point scoring.
Evanivitch said:
Of all things, privatised water has to be the most ludicrous thing known to man. It's not a competitive market, I can't change supplier, I can't bargain a better deal, and the feasibility of not using the water grid (private bore hole, private sewage storage) is beyond the means of 99% of the population (and probably isn't beneficial to society if there was high uptake in urban areas).
What reasons are there for it being private?
We provide software and services to many different sectors including utilities. Water is without doubt the worst run, least inefficient and hardest to deliver to.Mostly because they have no competition and are still riddled with old process and procedures and staff older than God from the government run days.What reasons are there for it being private?
Of the telcos BT is the least efficient still a lot of hang over from the public owned days. The joke is BT means Bring Ten (people to a meeting).
The thing with nationalised monopolies is that they also come with massive union membership.
The union has a squabble with management over pay and conditions and either the taxpayer has to foot the bill or off goes the broadband
Imagine the power of that union given the bereavement felt in every household when the WiFi gets a bit slow.
It would have the government by the short and curlies.
The union has a squabble with management over pay and conditions and either the taxpayer has to foot the bill or off goes the broadband
Imagine the power of that union given the bereavement felt in every household when the WiFi gets a bit slow.
It would have the government by the short and curlies.
Relax.
It's unlikely Labour will get in and, even if they do, none of these policies will be enacted before they're voted out again.
All the 'Project Fear' posts about the UK being turned into a 1984-style utopia are just tosh. They aren't going to subvert democracy so stop panicking.
Anyway. as I said, I doubt they will come anywhere near to getting in. Middle England will never vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott like they voted for Blair.
It's unlikely Labour will get in and, even if they do, none of these policies will be enacted before they're voted out again.
All the 'Project Fear' posts about the UK being turned into a 1984-style utopia are just tosh. They aren't going to subvert democracy so stop panicking.
Anyway. as I said, I doubt they will come anywhere near to getting in. Middle England will never vote for Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott like they voted for Blair.
BigMon said:
All the 'Project Fear' posts about the UK being turned into a 1984-style utopia are just tosh. They aren't going to subvert democracy so stop panicking.
I don't think they would subvert democracy and to be honest Corbyn doesn't worry me that much. John McDonnell is a different story.vaud said:
All the 'Project Fear' posts about the UK being turned into a 1984-style utopia are just tosh. They aren't going to subvert democracy so stop panicking.
Yes they will if they even get a sniff of power, that is and always has been the end game. Mcdonnell especially is a very nasty piece of work. But as you say hopefully they never will.The Hypno-Toad said:
Yes they will if they even get a sniff of power, that is and always has been the end game. Mcdonnell especially is a very nasty piece of work. But as you say hopefully they never will.
They honestly won't. And they'd be out again in 4 years if they went 'ultra left' so, as I say, don't panic.They'd be out again in 4 years anyway if they got in. And they would have to be part of a coalition which would rein in the looniest of the Labour policies (which is a lot) and they're just promising the moon on a stick anyway, knowing that they can't deliver it (like the 4 day week and 'turning the NHS around').
Edited by BigMon on Friday 15th November 10:40
BigMon said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
Yes they will if they even get a sniff of power, that is and always has been the end game. Mcdonnell especially is a very nasty piece of work. But as you say hopefully they never will.
They honestly won't. And they'd be out again in 4 years if they went 'ultra left' so, as I say, don't panic.They'd be out again in 4 years anyway if they got in. And they would have to be part of a coalition which would rein in the looniest of the Labour policies (which is a lot) and they're just promising the moon on a stick anyway, knowing that they can't deliver it (like the 4 day week and 'turning the NHS around').
Edited by BigMon on Friday 15th November 10:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff