Jump to content
Jools

The Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Bill said:

that idea is up against the Brexit companies policy of a free gramophone for every street, free black and white TV for every one aged over 75 and a tin can telephone for any under 14 year old boy wearing shorts all year road

and the new state broadcaster will be the BBC (Bigot Broadcasting Company) which will close at 11pm and feature news from across the empire

You're slipping Bill. You forgot re-runs of The Black and White Minstrel Show.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ricardo said:

You're slipping Bill. You forgot re-runs of The Black and White Minstrel Show.😉

"Listen with Mother" would be nearer the mark for Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're slipping Bill. You forgot re-runs of The Black and White Minstrel Show.

Mum loved them nearly as much as Ward Bond. Christmas day with the song sheet in the Radio Times. Thank goodness I had my Tiger and Eagle annuals to read when that was on.

Boris apparently likes the Clash. Well London ain't Burning but Crossrail would have been cheaper by burning fivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You're slipping Bill. You forgot re-runs of The Black and White Minstrel Show.

Mum loved them nearly as much as Ward Bond. Christmas day with the song sheet in the Radio Times. Thank goodness I had my Tiger and Eagle annuals to read when that was on.

Boris apparently likes the Clash. Well London ain't Burning but Crossrail would have been cheaper by burning fivers.

If only City could sign Roy Race and Blackie Gray😀

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Maybe to help RTB about Fibre.

I joined SKY in 1990, shortly after it began, one reason being we printed the free magazine you used to get, and then took on my Landline, broadband, mobile phone etc with them as they became established.

However, when fibre became available, I had to get my landline and fibre with them as they wouls not allow SKY access along our street. And they still are not allowing it, two years down the road.

They are a poor company in respect of customer service, no disrespect but I cannot understand what a chap from India is saying and constantly have to say pardon.

SKY provide a much better service but because BT own the line, I cannot use their better service.

How can it be any worse under government ownership?

We were told by Thatcher that privatising everything would produce a better service. The train service is worse. Energy supply is worse and now Fibre lags behind. You were wrong Thatcher. Profit comes before service now.

The problem you are describing in getting fibre is the problem of a monopolistic situation which is bad whether it is in te private or public sector. To overcome this you need choice. Choice empowers customers to go elsewhere if they are not satisfied with the product or service they are currently receiving.So we should be aiming for more choice and not less. Labour's broadband plan will create an instant monopoly in what is a strategic product area. It will be the old days of take it or leave it. That's not progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The problem you are describing in getting fibre is the problem of a monopolistic situation which is bad whether it is in te private or public sector. To overcome this you need choice. Choice empowers customers to go elsewhere if they are not satisfied with the product or service they are currently receiving.So we should be aiming for more choice and not less. Labour's broadband plan will create an instant monopoly in what is a strategic product area. It will be the old days of take it or leave it. That's not progress

The biggest problem for me is that pulling commercial providers into a public sector monopoly inevitably stiffles innovation. The public sector has a tendancey to become stodgy and complacent, as does any provider with a monopoly I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The problem you are describing in getting fibre is the problem of a monopolistic situation which is bad whether it is in te private or public sector. To overcome this you need choice. Choice empowers customers to go elsewhere if they are not satisfied with the product or service they are currently receiving.So we should be aiming for more choice and not less. Labour's broadband plan will create an instant monopoly in what is a strategic product area. It will be the old days of take it or leave it. That's not progress

It's free you wombat. I'm not sure you understand monopolies. 

And if the service is awful it will create a gap in the market that the private sector will fill; a service suitably more efficient that people are willing to pay for it. A little like the health sector. 

It's socialism with a dash of capitalism, rather than the capitalism with a dash of socialism that has utterly failed the majority for the last decade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It's free you wombat. I'm not sure you understand monopolies. 

And if the service is awful it will create a gap in the market that the private sector will fill; a service suitably more efficient that people are willing to pay for it. A little like the health sector. 

It's socialism with a dash of capitalism, rather than the capitalism with a dash of socialism that has utterly failed the majority for the last decade. 


"Labour’s broadband plan is a victory for outdated ideology over economic good sense. True, the UK has fallen badly behind many peers in broadband; fewer than 10 per cent of British homes and businesses can connect to a full-fibre network, against 75 per cent in Spain or 97 per cent in Japan. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to flesh out his own breezy promise to invest £5bn in ensuring all British households enjoy “gigabit speeds” by 2025. Yet borrowing a mooted £15bn to buy Openreach and turn it into British Broadband is not the way to accelerate the fibre rollout. The complexities of nationalising Openreach and uncertainties it would create — including for other private-sector competitors — might only slow progress. State-owned businesses have not lost their propensity to turn into bloated, inefficient bureaucracies. Nor have the customer service demands involved in running high-speed data networks ever been a strength of government monopolies. Buying Openreach at a likely discount to market prices, moreover, would hit millions of people who hold BT shares directly or through their pension funds. Breaking up BT would create risks for its sizeable pension fund deficit. It would frighten away some domestic and foreign investment. Indeed, Labour’s sudden reversal on BT — which shadow chancellor John McDonnell had previously said was “not on the list” for nationalisation — will increase business jitters over its hostility to private enterprise. Funding future costs of maintaining the broadband network by slapping a tax on technology giants such as Google and Facebook could have a dampening effect on tech investment, one of the bright spots of the UK economy. While it might work as an electoral bribe, there is also no sound argument for making broadband free. Vital utilities such as water and electricity have never been free; neither has public service broadcasting. A government might choose to subsidise, say, the elderly or residents of rural or remote areas. But it is otherwise better to use scarce funds to increase health and social care spending. The benefits of privatisation have in some cases been obscured by annoyance over rising prices, overcrowding, or excessive profits and bosses’ pay. Market structures in some industries — such as rail — need reassessing. Future governments must develop more effective means of regulating utilities. But there were good reasons to privatise the lumbering state behemoths of the 1970s. There are few good reasons to turn the clock back now."

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Oi! Daphne Oxenford was a goddess in our household.

A nice warm mumsy feeling, a bit like reading Billys posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Van wink said:


"Labour’s broadband plan is a victory for outdated ideology over economic good sense. True, the UK has fallen badly behind many peers in broadband; fewer than 10 per cent of British homes and businesses can connect to a full-fibre network, against 75 per cent in Spain or 97 per cent in Japan. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to flesh out his own breezy promise to invest £5bn in ensuring all British households enjoy “gigabit speeds” by 2025. Yet borrowing a mooted £15bn to buy Openreach and turn it into British Broadband is not the way to accelerate the fibre rollout. The complexities of nationalising Openreach and uncertainties it would create — including for other private-sector competitors — might only slow progress. State-owned businesses have not lost their propensity to turn into bloated, inefficient bureaucracies. Nor have the customer service demands involved in running high-speed data networks ever been a strength of government monopolies. Buying Openreach at a likely discount to market prices, moreover, would hit millions of people who hold BT shares directly or through their pension funds. Breaking up BT would create risks for its sizeable pension fund deficit. It would frighten away some domestic and foreign investment. Indeed, Labour’s sudden reversal on BT — which shadow chancellor John McDonnell had previously said was “not on the list” for nationalisation — will increase business jitters over its hostility to private enterprise. Funding future costs of maintaining the broadband network by slapping a tax on technology giants such as Google and Facebook could have a dampening effect on tech investment, one of the bright spots of the UK economy. While it might work as an electoral bribe, there is also no sound argument for making broadband free. Vital utilities such as water and electricity have never been free; neither has public service broadcasting. A government might choose to subsidise, say, the elderly or residents of rural or remote areas. But it is otherwise better to use scarce funds to increase health and social care spending. The benefits of privatisation have in some cases been obscured by annoyance over rising prices, overcrowding, or excessive profits and bosses’ pay. Market structures in some industries — such as rail — need reassessing. Future governments must develop more effective means of regulating utilities. But there were good reasons to privatise the lumbering state behemoths of the 1970s. There are few good reasons to turn the clock back now."

What that FT leader lacks is any kind of idea as to what should be done instead to make the UK catch up with other nations, especially since it plainly is rather dubious about Johnson's 'plans'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

What that FT leader lacks is any kind of idea as to what should be done instead to make the UK catch up with other nations, especially since it plainly is rather dubious about Johnson's 'plans'.

Well thats what we all await with joyfull anticipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1
17 minutes ago, Van wink said:


"Labour’s broadband plan is a victory for outdated ideology over economic good sense. True, the UK has fallen badly behind many peers in broadband; fewer than 10 per cent of British homes and businesses can connect to a full-fibre network, against 75 per cent in Spain or 97 per cent in Japan. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to flesh out his own breezy promise to invest £5bn in ensuring all British households enjoy “gigabit speeds” by 2025. Yet borrowing a mooted £15bn to buy Openreach and turn it into British Broadband is not the way to accelerate the fibre rollout. The complexities of nationalising Openreach and uncertainties it would create — including for other private-sector competitors — might only slow progress. State-owned businesses have not lost their propensity to turn into bloated, inefficient bureaucracies. Nor have the customer service demands involved in running high-speed data networks ever been a strength of government monopolies. Buying Openreach at a likely discount to market prices, moreover, would hit millions of people who hold BT shares directly or through their pension funds. Breaking up BT would create risks for its sizeable pension fund deficit. It would frighten away some domestic and foreign investment. Indeed, Labour’s sudden reversal on BT — which shadow chancellor John McDonnell had previously said was “not on the list” for nationalisation — will increase business jitters over its hostility to private enterprise. Funding future costs of maintaining the broadband network by slapping a tax on technology giants such as Google and Facebook could have a dampening effect on tech investment, one of the bright spots of the UK economy. While it might work as an electoral bribe, there is also no sound argument for making broadband free. Vital utilities such as water and electricity have never been free; neither has public service broadcasting. A government might choose to subsidise, say, the elderly or residents of rural or remote areas. But it is otherwise better to use scarce funds to increase health and social care spending. The benefits of privatisation have in some cases been obscured by annoyance over rising prices, overcrowding, or excessive profits and bosses’ pay. Market structures in some industries — such as rail — need reassessing. Future governments must develop more effective means of regulating utilities. But there were good reasons to privatise the lumbering state behemoths of the 1970s. There are few good reasons to turn the clock back now."

Aye, BT stated earlier that they have a pensions liability of £62 Billion --- Magic Grandpa obviously forgot to add that to his plan.

Matters not though -- Labours mathematical genius, Diane Abbot, is undoubtedly going to make that figure disappear in a flash.

🧙‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muted market reaction to this, mainly because nobody seriously expects JC to ever be in a position to implement this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Muted market reaction to this, mainly because nobody seriously expects JC to ever be in a position to implement this nonsense.

Labour currently 33/1...

You are correct, Van winky 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's popular.

Britain Elects
 
@britainelects
· 3h
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free broadband internet to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?"
Support: 62%
Oppose: 22%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Would you support a policy of free beer........and nuts!

Only if you promise to fund it by taxing the rich and internet companies that pay very little tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Would you support a policy of free beer........and nuts!

If Labour suggested it, then no, as it is a socialist plot to get us all drunk and guffy so they can then take our property without us realising.

If CONservatives suggested it then it would be a great idea and shows they care about our sustainance and are a true party of the people.

Isn't that how this tiresome right wing charade works??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Britain’s telecoms industry has warned of an investment freeze in the wake of Labour’s plan to nationalise BT’s Openreach network division, putting billions of pounds of broadband infrastructure spending at risk. CityFibre, a Goldman Sachs-backed telecoms group, was this week due to announce a fresh £1.5bn investment in its full-fibre broadband network, adding another 3m homes in smaller cities and towns. It has shelved the investment until after the election, according to a person with knowledge of the plans. Other telecoms companies have paused efforts to secure the supplies and workers needed to upgrade networks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Herman said:

If Labour suggested it, then no, as it is a socialist plot to get us all drunk and guffy so they can then take our property without us realising.

If CONservatives suggested it then it would be a great idea and shows they care about our sustainance and are a true party of the people.

Isn't that how this tiresome right wing charade works??

Lib Dems "“Wasting billions of taxpayer funds to nationalise BT won’t solve the connectivity issues faced by so many of our rural communities,”  " silly and unaffordable"

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

It's popular.

Britain Elects
 
@britainelects
· 3h
"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free broadband internet to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?"
Support: 62%
Oppose: 22%

People like free stuff.

Some actually believe free stuff is possible.🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“ ...... there is also no sound argument for making broadband free. Vital utilities such as water and electricity have never been free; neither has public service broadcasting. A government might choose to subsidise, say, the elderly or residents of rural or remote areas. But it is otherwise better touse scarce funds to increase health and social care spending. “ 

 

Well beyond pointing out that it’s interesting to see an FT opinion piece argue for increased health and social care spending, the argument for free broadband is actually quite compelling.
 

It is, as bankers normally point out, a strategic investment in the British economy. If it delivers the anticipated benefits any major investment is claimed to provide - increased efficiency, higher productivity, higher tax yields, then it won’t be a detriment to social spending, it will create more funding instead. And by providing a high speed service equally across the county, it encourages economic development in what are seen as peripheral, but lower cost, cities could have major benefits in reducing regional economic disparity and relieving pressure on available housing units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Only if you promise to fund it by taxing the rich and internet companies that pay very little tax.

Hahahahahahahaha🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

People like free stuff.

Some actually believe free stuff is possible.🤣

Free TV licence. Free bus passes. Free heating.Free prescriptions. Free healthcare. Some things can be free and are beneficial to fellow citizens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Herman said:

Free TV licence. Free bus passes. Free heating.Free prescriptions. Free healthcare. Some things can be free and are beneficial to fellow citizens. 

There is no such thing as free anything Herman.

It just means somebody else is paying and there isn't an unlimited supply of somebody elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×