Jump to content
Jools

The Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

One of Jools' favourite "politicians":

Brexit party MEP says it's better to stay in the EU than go ahead with Boris Johnson’s deal

The Brexit party MEP Ben Habib has said he thinks staying in the European Union would be better than going ahead with Boris Johnson’s withdrawal agreement.

Habib sees the prime minister’s deal as “much worse” than remaining in the bloc and that Johnson needs to be steered away from his plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jools said:

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.

🧙‍♀️

You have got to love @Jools

Of course BT said no such thing. Main reason is the Pension debt isn't £62 Billion, that is a figure he has just made up. Or unthinkingly copied from one of his favourate made up fact websites.

It is a lie.

Source: https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/BT-pension-deficit-increases-by-500m-in-Q3.php

Share this post


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

https://reaction.life/how-corbyn-got-his-broadband-nationalisation-numbers-wrong-by-a-factor-of-three/

There’s something about the current crop of Labour front benchers that just doesn’t add up! Clueless!

Ah bless @Van wink we know you are clueless but there is no need to sign off your posts with your your new signature. So you are sourcing this to the work of Iain Martin, Times journalist, ex-Telegraph and dyed in the wool Tory. Now tell me as Labour say this will cost £20 billion and the so called shocking error is £460 million is that a factor of three? Clue, the answer is no. It is staggering that you are so clueless to believe this. Perhaps the problem is that you lack the imagination to run with this policy and see the benefits. As a result you desparately swallow up any old guff the Tories feed you.

Edited by BigFish
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 . Now tell me as Labour say this will cost £20 billion and the so called shocking error is £460 million is that a factor of three? Clue, the answer is no. It is staggering that you are so clueless to believe this. 

The article says that labour had factored the annual running costs to be in the region of £230mill whereas the report on which their sums are based suggests it will be closer to £690mill.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The article says that labour had factored the annual running costs to be in the region of £230mill whereas the report on which their sums are based suggests it will be closer to £690mill.   

That’s how it appears to me .

 

BF“Perhaps the problem is that you lack the imagination to run with this policy”

Policy based on imagination .....says it all really!

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


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

That’s how it appears to me .

 

BF“Perhaps the problem is that you lack the imagination to run with this policy”

Policy based on imagination .....says it all really!

The fundamental problem with nationalised industries (including the NHS) is that of size - & holding a monopoly. It applies equally to large private companies.

I worked most of my life on contract for companies (probably more than 20) of differing sizes & with differing funding sources. The smaller ones were always more efficient. There was nowhere to hide. Nowhere to build your own mini-empire & hire superfluous staff as a shield for when the inevitable cuts came.

It's feedback. Feedback loops are very short in small firms. provide a poor/expensive service & you're dead. Sometimes someone gets lucky (one firm I worked for recounted how some lads who sold Demon Internet were seen doing handbrake turns in the company car park in their new Ferraris), but competition soon irons out extravagance. Large firms can (& do) hide useless performance for years.

State monopolies are the worst. There is no incentive to provide efficiency. In fact they're good places for governments to hide unemployment.

It's obvious there must be monopolies (the military!) but it needs a hell of a lot of willpower & ingenuity to introduce proper feedback into those monopolies to make them work efficiently. I trust Labour even less than the Tories to pay more than lip service to this necessity.

PS somebody I know is paying BT £58 p.m. for the same bundled service as I pay £31.50 for, using John Lewis. Hmmm.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Imagine if there was social media when they tried to get the NHS going?!"

 

Anyway, a few facts.

Broadband is now essential for many things, from paying bills, shopping, banking and now even access to any benefits. This is where the government and business is leading our economy.

Private companies will not do anything unless there is a profit in it. Nationalised companies will do it because it wouldn't have shareholder pressure.

Parts of the broadband network are not profitable, especially the rural network. It took my boss years of nagging to get decent standard internet, and he is only 20 miles from London and less than half a mile from the nearest village.

 

We need to circie the square, as that dreadful Americanism goes. Instead of just poohpoohing Labour's policy, which has merits and costs, we need to seriously think about it. How does everyone get access to it, from the Jobseeker, the farmer, businessman to the old dear who needs her food delivery?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Herman said:

"Imagine if there was social media when they tried to get the NHS going?!"

 

Anyway, a few facts.

Broadband is now essential for many things, from paying bills, shopping, banking and now even access to any benefits. This is where the government and business is leading our economy.

Private companies will not do anything unless there is a profit in it. Nationalised companies will do it because it wouldn't have shareholder pressure.

Parts of the broadband network are not profitable, especially the rural network. It took my boss years of nagging to get decent standard internet, and he is only 20 miles from London and less than half a mile from the nearest village.

 

We need to circie the square, as that dreadful Americanism goes. Instead of just poohpoohing Labour's policy, which has merits and costs, we need to seriously think about it. How does everyone get access to it, from the Jobseeker, the farmer, businessman to the old dear who needs her food delivery?

 

I agree with a lot of that, there is a big issue about provision in more remote areas which needs ( should have been ) to be dealt with. I would have thought that is more about ensuring that licences and contract provisions are tightly written and enforced and proper incentives provided. It certainly needs to be addressed.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Johnson and Trump are thanking Prince Andrew this morning.😯

Edited by Herman

Share this post


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

Jools, I have just checked and the total pension deficit of ALL UK companies is £59Bn.

I think you have an attention deficit. You certainly don't have a lying one.

A Tory liar? Pfft... must be the only one.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Jools puts the Tory into Story, that's for sure 😋

You need a non-linked Venn diagram with Jools in one circle and facts in another.😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Jools, I have just checked and the total pension deficit of ALL UK companies is £59Bn.

I think you have an attention deficit. You certainly don't have a lying one.

Are you sure about that KG. I had a quick look and from what I  saw it was nearer £260 billion at the end of 18/19. 
 

UK DB pension deficit increases by £60bn

01/04/19

The UK’s defined benefit pension scheme deficit increased by £60bn to £260bn at the end of March, PwC’s Skyval Index has revealed. 

The index, which checks in with the UK’s 5,450 DB pension funds found that total assets hit £1.650bn, while the liability target was recorded at £1,910bn..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Jools, I have just checked and the total pension deficit of ALL UK companies is £59Bn.

I think you have an attention deficit. You certainly don't have a lying one.

 

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

Are you sure about that KG. I had a quick look and from what I  saw it was nearer £260 billion at the end of 18/19. 
 

UK DB pension deficit increases by £60bn

01/04/19

The UK’s defined benefit pension scheme deficit increased by £60bn to £260bn at the end of March, PwC’s Skyval Index has revealed. 

The index, which checks in with the UK’s 5,450 DB pension funds found that total assets hit £1.650bn, while the liability target was recorded at £1,910bn..

Still a LOOOONG way off BT's pension deficit Van Wink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that’s wrong as well Daz
I think BF was having a senior moment last night, from what I can read Jools didn’t say BT had a pension debt or deficit of £62 billion, what he said was a pension liability which in fact is quite correct. 

F52191DC-E1A7-46DA-A9C6-54321568DC5A.thumb.png.36077a242661f70661d9423f83dfe149.png

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the proposal to re-nationalize all of BT or only a portion of it? Obviously the  total pension liability (whatever that number really is) will be reduced to that percentage of the whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that’s wrong as well Daz
I think BF was having a senior moment last night, from what I can read Jools didn’t say BT had a pension debt or deficit of £62 billion, what he said was a pension liability which in fact is quite correct. 

Is there a difference? It still has to be paid. ANd do pension liabilities appear on company balance sheets or are they separate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that KG. I had a quick look and from what I  saw it was nearer £260 billion at the end of 18/19

The bit I saw was referring to company pension funds based entirely on the normal worker/employee fund not the employer only funds.

Share this post


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

No that’s wrong as well Daz
I think BF was having a senior moment last night, from what I can read Jools didn’t say BT had a pension debt or deficit of £62 billion, what he said was a pension liability which in fact is quite correct. 

Is there a difference? It still has to be paid. ANd do pension liabilities appear on company balance sheets or are they separate?

The pension liability is what is the likely cost due should all eventualities happen ie how much will have to be paid out.....as say with a player's add ons.

The deficit is the amount short of that sum in it's fund ie City have £10m but if all the add ons happen we will have to pay out £13m so there is a projected deficit of £3m

Any transfer of BT pensioners would cause a pro rata transfer of pension funds;

However what I did notice happened very quickly was that the same ill informed nonsense was being put out on many varied 'platforms' which suggests the intent was not to refute the Labour statement but to re-assure it's faithful that it was still ok to be a Tory. I doubt any had a clue what they were posting, but they had something to cling to.

What is behind Labours idea, perhaps this rebuttal of the guff about 'competition' ........"According to research by Cable, a price comparison site, Italy has Europe’s cheapest broadband, with the UK fifth, behind France and Germany. The UK scores particularly poorly on a cost-per-megabit basis, ranking 21st out of 29 countries. "

As with the 'on the cheap' failing 'free' schools, the cuts to the emergency services, and the NHS it is time to reverse this lunacy to get the country back on it's feet and start investing...not see huge sums paid out in dividends to non UK holdings.

A simple choice ....invest in the UK or divest the UK of it's assets

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2019 at 12:39, Jools said:

In your haste, you seem to have forgotten that in order to re-nationalise anything in the UK we need to be out of the EU.

Labour now advocate leaving the EU do they?

I haven't heard or read that anywhere 🤪

which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be another lie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

from what I can read Jools didn’t say BT had a pension debt or deficit of £62 billion, what he said was a pension liability which in fact is quite correct. 

Possibly ... but just quoting the liability without the assets to meet the liability to meet the liabilities is meaningless. You don't add the pension fund liability to the cost of purchase without include the pension fund assets.

It is the same stupidity that perverts peoples' understanding of the national debt. Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of economics and finance knows that a balance sheet has two sides - assets and liabilities. Referring to one without reference to the other is just about pointless in most circumstances.

It's the same sort of nonsense that Cameron used to talk about in "paying down the deficit." Nothing has been paid down or paid back - we were still borrowing huge amounts - despite the pointless promises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a good day to be a bigot.

Last night' affrontary, whereby one of our betters was questioned by a commoner was bad enough - but today it got even worse.

"Farage accuses Tories of "corruption" while saying claims of Brexit job offers and peerages are "fact"

The Brexit Party leader has told BBC Radio 5 Live that claims his party's candidates had been offered negotiating roles and peerages in return for them standing aside for Conservatives in the general election are "fact". "Ann Widdecombe made it perfectly clear she received two phone calls, from a senior official in number 10, offering her a job on the negotiating team if she stood down as an election candidate. Fact," said Mr Farage.

"Fact number two, Sir Eddie Lister, rang up our candidate for Peterborough offering him a job in higher education if he stood down as a candidate. "They’re the things that are already out in the open and what I have said that is there was actually a package put together, in which eight senior figures of the Brexit party would go to the house of Lords and be part of the negotiating team ... in order for us to stand down, and I was shown the list that we'd be be given from Number 10. "It’s corruption. It’s corruption." The police are investigating allegations of electoral fraud in relation to the claims."
 
Things have hit rock bottom when even Farage is accusing you of corruption 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2019 at 14:00, Rock The Boat said:

Of course, if Labour did roll out broadband everywhere, it would put every other ISP out of business. So there would be no competition and as everyone who lived through the years of socialist nationalised industries such as British Leyland will know, both product quality and customer service goes right out of the window.

But there are more sinister aspects to why you don't want the government to be your broadband provider. Firstly, the government will have free licence to snoop on everything that you do online, from your chat, your shopping to your bank accounts and your location. Secondly, with a monopoly power the government can restrict your access to the internet if they don't like who you are. This is already happening in China where social credit is earned, and those who the regime doesn't like are unable to buy travel tickets or hold credit cards. If you let the government run your broadband connect then you will hand over all your rights as a private citizen to them.

is hand crank as clueless about this as he is about much else ?

well here he is, posting as RTB, clearly emonstrating his ignorance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The article says that labour had factored the annual running costs to be in the region of £230mill whereas the report on which their sums are based suggests it will be closer to £690mill. 

It does try to give this impression but it is incorrect in doing so ... it is either designed to mislead, or more likely (?) just ignorant.

The report is trying to give a current value to future costs, so has adjusted the figure to 2020 prices, because by 2050 inflation would make the figures pretty meaningless. It has used a discount value of 9.3% which seems very strangely high to me - so I am not confident, without reading the report that the figure is genuine or another misrepresentation/ misunderstanding.

So, in actual fact the £230m operating costs IS CORRECT FOR 2020. Using the questionable 9.3% discount figure, the operating cost in 2021 will be  £230 million x 1.09 (251 million). 

The figure in 2050 will be £230 million x 1.09 to the power of 30. If my rather rusty excel skills are correct, this would be about £30 billion. The revenue base to fund it would be expected to increase by a similar process, but the 9.3% discount rate seems strange as I say.

Edited by Badger
Corrected mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bill said:

is hand crank as clueless about this as he is about much else ?

well here he is, posting as RTB, clearly emonstrating his ignorance

“emonstrating his ignorance”

another Billy classic! 😀

Share this post


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

No that’s wrong as well Daz
I think BF was having a senior moment last night, from what I can read Jools didn’t say BT had a pension debt or deficit of £62 billion, what he said was a pension liability which in fact is quite correct.

Fair point @Van wink, although it is important to take account of @Jools intent (and that of the the so called "article"). Clearly both wanted to rubbish the policy and the technique they used was to take one element of the financial calculations and attempt to extrapolate this to give the impression that Labour's figures don't add up and furthermore they are financially incompetant.

In the case of the article @Badger has rather debunked a rather weak piece of Tory propaganda from Tory journalist Iain Martin. As for Jools, if you are correct and he indended to refer to the pension liability that means BT has pension ASSETS OF £57 BILLION.

Of course the deficit would be taken into account with regards to the nationalisation and would negatively, quite correctly, impact the compensation for the shareholders. In addition it would be possible to take the pensions off the books as part of the process and make them free standing.

It is instructive to examine the actual problem here. BT have a 90% market share of the fibre market. The companies roll out has failed and at 8% lags behind the countries competitors and even countries like Madagascar. This is while in the free market and under Tory control. BT have also been fined for uncompetitive practices, using its wholesale arm to favour its retail arm to the detriment of competing ISPs. The companies share price has tanked and it has been compensating  its shareholders with dividends of 15% while paying its CEO a seven figure salary.

This is what I mean by your lack of imagination. This problem has been placed in the too difficult to solve category by the Tories. The breakup of BT has been shelved and they have no idea how to address the problems. In fact they don't have the imagination to even see it as a problem. Labour do, they have put up the costings and time limited it. If there is a criticism it is the question whether fibre is the correct technology rather than wireless not whether the funding is there or whether this addresses the identified problem. In both cases the answer is yes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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

×