Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 5, 2019.
No but most people do live and work in cities.
But major population centres in the uk will never have the public transport system that London does. I visit London for work oaccasionally, the tube is fantastic. busy yes but a world apart from getting around in Birmingham.
Why should the rest of the Uk subsidise the travel of Londeners? Whereas we all use broadband more or less equally.
Perhaps I have yet to think this through fully, but I can see immediate downsides for current BT shareholders; and I can see downsides for other broadband providers that would have to compete against a state owned monopoly.
But considering that our Fibre Broadband uptake lags significantly behind most other developed countries, can anyone describe a downside for the consumer?
This is not a rhetorical question, it's genuine.
Dunno? Same reason London technically subsidies most of the UK?
You guys don't seem to have much scope for future improvement?
Yes, ok, lets stick to state issued broadband, think how easy it will be for them to sift every bit of data on you, for your safety, block all those subversive websites
Maybe your kids will have the ability to think bigger.
The only thing i can think of is the risk of unionisation of the industry which could result in more militant strike action and a less reliable service to the customer.
Id say the main issue in water nationalisation is the risk of long term under investment in maintaining infrastructure.
I dont see that as a big issue. This isnt China, take the tinfoil hat off.
Unless all the workers have been ploughing money into the sharesave schemes they have. Labour are going to offer "fair value" for the bits it wants. Anyway shares are going to tank tomorrow along with people's pension pots.
The concept and the cost of the concept need to be separated.
The cost of the concept is to nationalise the provision, supply, development and delivery of UK internet services.
The concept is to provide "some kind of uber high speed" internet access to the UK at no cost at the point of access.
The two are different. The latter is a fantastic idea. The payback would be huge - akin to the first electrification, Arguably it does't need to be free, but then again it won't really be free as a taxpayer somewhere will be paying for this.
The former is an enabler to make it happen. In this instance we're talking about nationalising public companies. That'll be good or bad depending on what an individual believes.
Well it was you claiming its nonsense and a lie so I had assumed you had seen proof? Yeah, when I first heard it I thought it was perhaps on the high side but equally I am aware at how much of a factor US charges thier own hospitals for the same drugs. Guess you dont have any proof so its basically Labour claim one thing and you claim another. Jury out on both sides atm
Yeah borrowing 20b and then making an almighty balls up of the implementation which will probably cost 50b and be 10 years late
Nationalisation wouldn't even be a problem if the country's politics weren't purposefully divisive with no desire to actually improve things without it becoming an ideological tug of war with every little thing, along with a campaign of derisive unhelpful narratives from the media along the same partisan lines.
Either way transport needs improving, why are the providers so ****?
Did the government not try and control your porn habits just a year or 2 ago?
Also something about about not allowing encrypted messages on WhatsApp etc? All in the name of terrorism?
I'm just making conversation. Free stuff usually has a hidden price. I wonder how the Cons will counter this in the morning....
There will only be a small proportion of workers who are lucky enough to get share schemes. I work in a water utility and dont get one, there used to be one until a private company bought up all our shares and took control.
So for level playing field purposes, this isnt a factor in my personal view.
No I'm claiming nothing. I happen to like Andrew Neil and he was rubbishing the claim on his show. Also various other commentators rubbishing it on the news programmes I watch.
It's been widely reported by now that the figure could only be accurate if we bought 100% of our drugs from the US at much higher prices than we do now.
Labour took that (unrealistic) scenario and turned it into a slogan like Boris's "let's save 350 million" claim. Labour's slogan was "Let's send Trump 500 million a week".
If you criticise one I think you have to criticise the other.
Well losing porn is no great loss imo, and i actually agree with the 2nd one.
On what basis have you decided that this is a likely view of how such a policy would transpire?
It seems to run quite counter to most Continental examples that we have.
By what reasoning have you come to this conclusion? Again, a genuine question.
We've been over this. You can't selectively break encryption. It's either works for all or it's broken for all. And we need encryption to keep the world turning these days.
Ok well that will only be 95% of them then that are eligible. They are also all getting shares as a bonus next year under the new boss. I can only imagine the look of joy on everyone's face tomorrow
Have you ever been involved in any government project? Over run and over budget are just the starting points
One downside would be freedom. State controlled access to the internet? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for disaster?
Separate names with a comma.