Forum menu
Why are people talking about fibre broadband in 10 years time? 6G will be around then and is clearly a much easier thing to offer everyone than putting fibres to every single house
Because the British have a penchant for ridiculously overpriced boondoggles that are obsolescent or have serious flaws upon introduction. See NHS IT systems, Eurofighter Typhoon, various rail projects, the Type 45 destroyers.
6G might be around but probably so will gigabit fibre.
Yep, but what is easier to install to every house? And what is easier to keep up to date as new faster technology arrives?
Yep, but what is easier to install to every house?
There'll be a mix. I don't think that Labour's policy is a concrete plan to specifically put fibre to every single farmhouse. Obviously, if it ever gets put into operation there'll be a plan that'll reveal it's more effective to put in 6 3/4 G in to remote cottages than to run fibre.
You lot keep getting quite worked up over hypotheticals.
Cables are 90 odd% of the time better than wireless. Renationalising companies however is something that is taking a dark path of forced sale and not effective. If we had kept BT nationalised in the 80s and reformed it then yes it could work but we have taken a different path and trying to jump the company back to that model would be damaging to BT / open reach and the country's image as a whole. After Brexit the last thing we need is to make the country look even more politically unstable.
1p on income tax? Sounds fine if it is across the board. More stable tax take, raises more money than adding more tax on "top earners"*, less of the it's other responsibility to pay for xyz.
*To achieve a good extra amount of money from top earners a significant tax increase is needed on them and quite a few people who may be doing well but are not some sort of company owning mega rich get caught fueling a us and them mentality. Of course that's what some people want to achieve..
Why do you think 6G will be either easier or cheaper than installing fibre? And which version of it have you been looking at that doesn’t rely on fibre already being in place up to a certain point? And why can’t we catch up with other countries and get fast stable connections to people ASAP? And will this amazing 6G really get to “everybody” or just major cities (and then only to those prepared and able to pay through the nose for it)?
I heard two Brexit gammon idiots (sorry but I was outnumbered) talking about the 'cost' of this and what it will do to the poor pensioner's pension funds this morning.
I pointed out to them they will probably benefit in lots of tangible ways not least by the fact that BT's share price had more than halved in the last two years ... Hardly a support for a market economy is it?
I suppose the fact that Angela Rayner grew up in a very troubled environment and still rose to top is immaterial. She’s just a bit thick isn’t she cos she didn’t get straight As in her GCSEs despite having a kid at 16?
Tosh
I know nothing about her background at all, in this context it doesn't matter. She is thick as she doesn't know the very basic facts relating to the policy that she is promoting. For a campaigning politician, that is simply not good enough.
Don't forget, everyone campaigning for election is going through a public interview for an £79k p/a job. If you were recruiting at work for that post, would you appoint someone who knew so little about their core subject matter?
Well she knows plenty about what Sure Start centres can do. Many of our politicians have no experience of the lives of people born further down the economic pecking order. Not sure she’s PM material either, but I wouldn’t rule her out of other roles just because she didn’t get through school. I have a relative that was heavily involved at Stockport College, which she attended, and giving people a second chance at further education is exactly what it aims to do.
What do you no?
I know/no how to get a sneaky edit in when I spot my own typo!
Probably the only time using authority is justified. Positive discrimination works. When you have had centuries of ingrained institutional and cultural bias, it won’t change by accident, it has to be forced.
Only it never is the only time.
30 years after East Germans were allowed to leave ... after decades of what they could and couldn't say and do because it all turned out they had to be forced.
The irony being the reason the BXP took so many Labour votes is because many feel like they are being forced to accept things rather than being involved and convinced. It's ironic because the BXP only has to listen without calling them racist, homophobic or anything except nationalist
It's even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy.... but many are simply sick of the special pleading and refusal to discuss real issues or concerns (many of which are actually false, others just exaggerated) ... because instead they are shut out of debate.
It astounds me that Labour haven't elected a female leader yet... but telling the people sick of being given choices set by political agenda won't make them feel included. (and that includes many women and ethnic groups)
Do we care about last night's local election results? Low turnout/local issues but I wondered if there was anything we could infer. Rhos seemed particularly interesting.
but many are simply sick of the special pleading and refusal to discuss real issues or concerns
Ahh… you’re one of those.
Well done for not using the phrase “political correctness”.
Rhos seemed particularly interesting.
Perhaps the armchair psephologists might think again about the deal that the remain parties have made with each other only benefiting the LibDems.
1p on income tax? Sounds fine if it is across the board. More stable tax take, raises more money than adding more tax on “top earners”*, less of the it’s other responsibility to pay for xyz.
*To achieve a good extra amount of money from top earners a significant tax increase is needed on them and quite a few people who may be doing well but are not some sort of company owning mega rich get caught fueling a us and them mentality. Of course that’s what some people want to achieve..
They said it's across the board [1] and I like it for the all the same reasons as you do. Plus if they tax PAYE wage slaves like me they may actually collect some revenue because I can't easily dodge it. If it doesn't collect much revenue (possible since people on the LC threads claim the revenue curve is flat-ish for income tax) they can just drop it back.
[1] Mind you I can't find any written source for any of this.
Spain has just had its fourth General Election in as many years – we are not ‘special’.
We're not even world class when it comes to being chaotic and totally rubbish.
They said it’s across the board
Hopefully accompanied by a decent hike in tax-free allowance
Anyone listening/reading Johnson on radio 5?
I'm trying to read it, but it's just such utter bullshit, and it should be obviously such to anyone with more than a couple of Brain Cells to rub together,
what better way to be sure that your world view is the correct one than have someone more like yourself in a position of power?
Well I'm pretty sure that someone who actually knows and has experienced what people at the bottom have to put up with would be better placed to run the country than someone who puts his **** into a dead pigs head to impress his mates at an upper class party.
And yeah, I am more like Rayner than Boris and very proud of it. Obviously the main thing you miss out on by not going to public school is the lesson in knowing your place.
Worth remembering that pig head story was made up by the same team that brought you Brexit, as part of their aim of transforming the Tory party for their own purposes.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
Wait, what?
State run ISP?
What could possibly go wrong...
Hopefully accompanied by a decent hike in tax-free allowance
Dunno, I expect (but don't know) that a decent hike in tax-free allowance would hit revenue so if they are proposing that it *could* be a mistake.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
Err, you sure about that? As I seem to remember that immigrants are a huge net contributor to the economy. I guess it could be that 5% contribute enough to make up for 95% who don't but I can't see that myself.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt here and suggest this statement is simply missing a punctuation mark ( or 2 )
It reads very different when inserted
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants.
Who actually contribute positively to the economy.
I think that was the point… he was saying that immigration is not “out of control” and that immigrants are a net benefit… but also saying that those who have been saying this, rather than “listening” to those who think and say otherwise, are the real problem. We’ve heard that argument many times before… “these people are wrong and prejudiced but how dare politicians say they are, or do anything to counter the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia in our country… it makes them look out of touch”.
Politicians have been “listening” to those blaming immigrants forever… it’s just that some (most now?) will use that experience to try and win the votes of those that think that way, and some (few now?) will try and change their minds.
> insert red “controls on immigration” mug img here <
Labour wont get a majority so this is all a bit irrelevant
or not.......
Ed Milibands commie energy price cap became law
Labours minimum wage is now touted by the Tories
Banning private schools, has led to serious proposals about revoking charity status
Renationalisation of public services is not as daft as it sounds, especially when things like water bills are mostly now paying off the debt the investment firms ran up to buy the franchise
even in opposition labour can effect some change, admittedly we have to put up with grinding Tory austerity & a the divisive poison of Johnsons hard brexit
Ahh… you’re one of those.
Well done for not using the phrase “political correctness”.
I don't know if I am .... but I know plenty who are. It most certainly wouldn't make me vote for Farage... (and my OH is an immigrant)
It really doesn't matter what it's called though or if their complaint is actually true if the matter can't be discussed then it can never be resolved.
Do you remember that woman of Asian decent and her kid being told "this is England speak English"? The one in Wales where she was speaking Welsh? What I am saying is IMHO how we could possibly get to that.
Do you remember the another one? The woman who apparently was forced to remove her pottery pigs from her window-sill? I don't know if this was even actually TRUE.... but you know what, it doesn't matter because a whole load of people were keen to insist she was racist.
.. and guess who won? The trash papers getting per click/comment revenue.
There also was that whole 2015 inclusiveness report (albeit commissioned by Tory's) but with findings supported by Chuka Umunna that got buried because it was "racist".
and ... FFS Corbyn is being accused of racism (under a guise of calling it anti-semetism)
Ed Milibands commie energy price cap became law
T'was a stupid idea then, it's a stupid idea now.
Labours minimum wage is now touted by the Tories
T'was a good idea then, it's a good idea now. I was deffo an opponent of the minimum wage back in the day, if it have been explained me that without a minimum wage we were we actually subsidising jobs with in work benefits (and importing labour to do the fake jobs) I'd have had a very different view on it.
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt here and suggest this statement is simply missing a punctuation mark ( or 2 )
It reads very different when insertedIt’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants.
Who actually contribute positively to the economy.
Seems pretty obvious to me that's what he meant.
if the matter can’t be discussed
If by “can’t be discussed” you mean “dominate public debate, the media and our politics in general”, then carry on.
lunge
Err, you sure about that? As I seem to remember that immigrants are a huge net contributor to the economy. I guess it could be that 5% contribute enough to make up for 95% who don’t but I can’t see that myself.
I have no ideas what percent... nor do I give a monkey's.
I'm simply stating the overall percentage is actually very low and that of those here the overwhelming contribution both financially (easy to prove) and culturally (harder to prove) is positive.
The whole Faragist (is that a new word) immigrant that comes and steals your job whilst claiming your benefits and claiming for their 15 kids elsewhere is a tri-oxymoron (a new word where any 2 of 3 things are an oxymoron) ..
However some immigrants (like anyone else) do not contribute positively to either... or some may (like everyone else) be both positive and negative.
Fundamentally WE ARE ALL HUMANS ... PEOPLE .... and trying to make out that everyone is good/bad is beyond pointless BUT what it does do is split a load of HUMANS one way or another...
kelvin
If by “can’t be discussed” you mean “dominate public debate, the media and our politics in general”, then carry on.
It's not being discussed ("as in what's good and bad about" ) it's being debated like some US debating team ....
Most voters engage in or with discussion rather than philosophical debates where one side is simply trying to prove their point and win a debate.
Kelvin - that’s not what’s happening though is it?
There’s plenty being said on the positive benefits of immigration - access to skills and capacity that’s required for our economy to grow and deliver the services we need.
What’s also being said is that this needs to be done in a controlled way, not just for the benefit of people who are already here (including recent migrants) but also for those that have yet to come.
Given the unavoidable lead time in building infrastructure (housing, school buildings, hospitals) that in many cases have 5-10 year delivery times, and the need to recruit and train the additional staff to run them (4-7 years to train a teacher to competency, 8-15 years for specialist medics) etc etc, uncontrolled immigration just creates problems all round - which is why every country in the world has some form of control.
By contrast, Corbyn has committed to:
- easing freedom of movement further
- extending the automatic right for family members to join
- creating new automatic entitlements to very costly public services e.g. healthcare..
...And then branding anyone who can see the challenges this would create as racist.
If you take a good walk round most cities in Europe (including the U.K.) there are now serious issues with homelessness, worker exploitation and people living in poverty.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse - we MUST start to get ahead of these problems and we cannot do that if continue with the flow of 4-500k people (or more) entering the country each year, often with little or no notice and in many cases having immediate automatic entitlement to public services irrespective of whether they will every make a contribution to the running of those services.
To do this simply guarantees that poverty will increase for everyone and societal problems will continue to get worse - often impacting those that are already disadvantaged far more than it impacts the chattering classes.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse
Wait a minute there. That does not follow at all.
Who wants to come to the UK? Vagrants and benefit seekers? Homeless? Not really.
Most immigrants come to work or are refugees. The former pay for themselves (and grow our economy thereby icreasing the amount of money available for homeless), the latter we need to help regardless.
Most of the homeless I see in Cardiff are white and by the sound of it local. Not a scientific survey, I appreciate.
As someone who pays £25 a month for an internet connection which constantly drops out and delivers speeds which can't power a video stream this broadband thing is massive, and I'm not exactly in the middle of nowhere. I doubt I'm the only one. I wonder if when they put in the national grid and water/sewerage system people worried about how it was going to be paid for? Of course they didn't, because it was obviously required. This is no different, and will be a game changer.
There’s plenty being said on the positive benefits of immigration – access to skills and capacity that’s required for our economy to grow and deliver the services we need.
What’s also being said is that this needs to be done in a controlled way, not just for the benefit of people who are already here (including recent migrants) but also for those that have yet to come.
Given the unavoidable lead time in building infrastructure (housing, school buildings, hospitals) that in many cases have 5-10 year delivery times, and the need to recruit and train the additional staff to run them (4-7 years to train a teacher to competency, 8-15 years for specialist medics) etc etc, uncontrolled immigration just creates problems all round – which is why every country in the world has some form of control.
By contrast, Corbyn has committed to:
– easing freedom of movement further
– extending the automatic right for family members to join
– creating new automatic entitlements to very costly public services e.g. healthcare..
....and all of this at a time when we have a housing crisis.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year (I think Torys are promising 300,000 a year & the NPPF is allowing the planning permission for that number, and more).
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can't be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It's a massive ponzi-scheme & it's turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Scotland has net immigration of a mere 21,000 in a space 3/5ths the size of England which due to a nice low birthrate leaves net population increase of just ~13,300. Would that be so bad in the rest of the Uk?
The former pay for themselves
In one sense they pay for themselves and bring advantages of all kinds. What they don't do is bring 1.5 acres of new land in per person.
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can’t be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It’s a massive ponzi-scheme & it’s turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Scotland has net immigration of a mere 21,000 in a space 3/5ths the size of England which due to a nice low birthrate leaves net population increase of just ~13,300. Would that be so bad in the rest of the Uk?
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
1.5 acres of new land in per person
Have I created 3 acres by having two kids? How odd.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year (I think Torys are promising 300,000 a year & the NPPF is allowing the planning permission for that number, and more).
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can’t be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It’s a massive ponzi-scheme & it’s turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Correction, it's not HOUSES it's housing... essentially slum housing
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
Using young healthy tax paying immigrants just shifts the problem away a few years, it doesn't solve it. One day immigration will stop and that problem will have to be managed. So we might as well manage it now. Like all ponzi schemes it will stop one day, better to stop it sooner.
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
You understand what a ponzi scheme is right ?
I shouted loudly about that at the time @CaptainFlashheart … Labour under both Miliband and Corbyn have done their fair share of trying to ride the anti-immigrant wave. Only this week I pointed out that McClusky and others within the Labour movement are still at it. Labour are far from immune to trying this approach.
You understand what a ponzi scheme is right ?
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… just go and read all the migration related parts of the EU thread, rather than repeating all that nonsense again here, please.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year
Correction, it’s not HOUSES it’s housing… essentially slum housing
Indeed.
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
The advantage of a party that harvests votes from successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society is that to win it has to create more successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society.
Have I created 3 acres by having two kids? How odd.
No, but you and your wife will die and free up 3 acres for them. Now, if you've been irresponsible and had three I'd be asking where the 1.5 acres you owe us are!
If you'd had one or zero the Green party would (quite rightly) give you a medal.