EU referendum are you in or out

[zip accident]

I don't know how it happens but only Corbyn can seem to generate so much hate that he can even convince a forum full of nerds that faster broadband is somehow a bad thing.

Faster broadband isn't a bad thing, but when most of the population can remember 300 baud, then 56k baud, going from 50M to 200M (if that's what's being suggested) isn't a *very* good or even impressive thing.

Faster broadband will happen anyway, technological progress isn't even near to hitting the buffers in that respect. Getting to the places that don't have it would be nice, but for the places that already have it, which is mostly Labour or Labour leaning anyway, it means very little. If he thinks he can buy Tory votes with broadband to the shires, he's probably making a mistake.

So long as he's still backing Brexit, I'm still calling him a twit.

[Absolute_Zero]

I don't know how it happens but only Corbyn can seem to generate so much hate that he can even convince a forum full of nerds that faster broadband is somehow a bad thing.

Perhaps it's recognised for what it is, the equivalent of free ice cream for children, if children could vote.

[KlaxonCow]

I don't know how it happens but only Corbyn can seem to generate so much hate that he can even convince a forum full of nerds that faster broadband is somehow a bad thing.

Because there's way better things that could actually do with some government muscle to get kick started and "free broadband" ain't it.

For example, a government programme to install solar roofing and a storage battery on homes. Which would essentially be giving those homes a base level of free electricity for the next 40 to 50 years.

And having a government programme for this would, you know, help kick start the industry when they've got all these guaranteed government sales - which'll help reach "economies of scale" to bring the costs of such things down, so it's cheaper for everyone.

This would make a very significant difference to people's finances to have their energy bills reduced. It'd allow the government to actually stand a chance of reaching emission targets. When you've got a base level of "free electricity" then this will also help with electric car sales, as you could potentially use the solar to charge the car and be able to commute to work and back with no fuel costs whatsoever.

(And this idea, by the way, was one that Hilary Clinton was actually going to do - provide solar and batteries to millions of homes - if she'd have been President instead of Trump.)

Folks talk about "access to broadband" as a human right. But, surely, in my opinion, way before that one, we should be working on "access to free / cheap electricity" first (after all, "access to broadband" means little if you can't afford the energy to power your devices or broadband router).

And this one also creates new jobs. Nationalising OpenReach is securing jobs that already exist, but kick starting the solar industry is creating new jobs (while the folks at OpenReach, left as part of BT, would still have their jobs).

It would actually be some genuine action - not just empty platitudes - towards tackling climate change and reducing emissions.

Basically, "free broadband" feels like an election gimmick to grab votes. But investment in solar and storage batteries feels like a government that actually wants to fix shit.

Oh, and while he's at it, undo the Tory decision against the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. The UK has tremendous potential for tidal energy generation - for obvious reasons, as we're an island, with plenty of coast - and the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon was going to prove the concept (Swansea Bay was chosen as it has one of the biggest tidal ranges and there's a good location for it there, so it's a good testing ground for the concept).

This is where government action is useful, as energy companies are not going to undermine their own fossil fuel monopolies, while it nets so much profits for them, but we need infrastructure change to tackle climate change, improve air quality, bring cheap guaranteed energy to consumers (and that's the one that energy companies are not going to shoot themselves in the foot to undermine - but if government makes it happen anyway, then they'll have to accept that "the old order" can't stand and shift to new energy generation) and so forth.

If you're going to wield the state in a "socialist" way, then use it as wisely as possible (in a way that'll also improve non-state actors too, so if / when it gets privatised in future by the Tories, it doesn't matter so much as the needed change / the good has already been done and the cat is out of the bag, never to go back in again).


p.s. Also, a simple one is changing building regulations, so that all new builds must have solar roofing, a storage battery and smart metering (plus certain levels of insulation must be met). So all new houses are renewable from the off... and then the government programme is about gradually converting older houses over.

[gilesgoat]

.. that's why need faster broadband .. for free ...

[Cloudane]

So it's not the biggest issue... so what, is free broadband his only policy in the entire election manifesto or something?

Why's it not possible to care about multiple things simultaneously?

Brexit policy is already outlined: scrap Tory agreement, re-negotiate (yes of course the EU will despite the bluster about not doing so) with customs union, then let the people have the final say. How many times do they have to say this before people stop saying they don't have a Brexit policy?

And why on earth is the answer to any criticism to vote for the bloody Tories?

[gilesgoat]

So it's not the biggest issue... so what, is free broadband his only policy in the entire election manifesto or something?

Why's it not possible to care about multiple things simultaneously?

Brexit policy is already outlined: scrap Tory agreement, re-negotiate (yes of course the EU will despite the bluster about not doing so) with customs union, then let the people have the final say. How many times do they have to say this before people stop saying they don't have a Brexit policy?

And why on earth is the answer to any criticism to vote for the bloody Tories?

I have to say despite wanting Labour and all one thing is true "Corbyn does not look too good", I have to maybe agree with others "He's maybe not the right person to be the Labour leader", someone else is needed, even I I could say "I have reasons to think he's not much to be trusted" or he has a quite stange way to comes out with things.

But he definitely "does not look that good", better than Boris sure but still "not exactly the person I'd vote for" and the Labour party as a whole "needs to pick up itself better".

Said that, I still would NOT vote Tory at all .. but it certainly is a bit of a bleak scenario

To be honest "nothing really feels good at all to be voted", sure you have to vote something but it's nothing I'd feel "oh I feel nice I voted for this" and even trying to find "the least worst" or "the best choice to vote" is .. no idea really ..

[(o)(o)]

So it's not the biggest issue... so what, is free broadband his only policy in the entire election manifesto or something?

Why's it not possible to care about multiple things simultaneously?

Yep... Broadband is only one minor policy issue that has been annouced pre-manifesto.

Shadow Chancellor came out with a raft of measures yesterday which are much more radical, barely getting a sniff.

Said it before will say it again.. the 20x salary rule for public / outsourced contract CEOs is utter genius !!

[Labour's economic advisors are authentic academics, or were.. Picketty was on the panel at one point wow.. Tories just serve to please vested interests.]

That alone will transform public services saving taxpayers billions and ensuring companies are attracted to tender whose primary motivation is entrepreneurialism, not greed.

The idea that CEOs of shithead companies need to be paid " infinite billiions " (with bonuses on top, even if they fail) or that anyone over £500k will pack their bags and move their family to Monaco or live on a Yacht... is utter utter UDDER bollocks.. they always pull these threats out and the truth is...

Those who are that desperate to pay virtually nil tax already have !! It's called Non dom status and it's enjoyed (abused) by Lord Ashcroft, Philip Green, the chairman of Barclays, Roman Abramovich, Richard Caring, CEO of HSBC etc...

Wait for the manifesto boys, removing non-dom status should be happening straight away under Labour!!

A few clues here -> link

Edit : Also I think McDonnell has come round to MTT at least in some respects, thank fuck it's time to turn on the pumps and print some fucking money !!

Jo "Would you launch a nucl.. YES!" Swinson's 1% surplus rule would destroy this country the woman is a total loon

[KlaxonCow]

So it's not the biggest issue... so what, is free broadband his only policy in the entire election manifesto or something?

No, it's not his only policy.

But it's the one we were currently discussing.

Why's it not possible to care about multiple things simultaneously?

Actually, there is an answer to that one.

Or, at least, while it's perfectly possible to care about multiple things simultaneously, it's unfortunately not possible to fund an indefinite number of things simultaneously.

There is a limit to taxpayer's money. There is a limit to how much tax the average person can afford to pay. There's also going to be, in practice, a limit to how much "backlash" Corbyn's going to be able to generate with his more radical "re-nationalise" policies. A limit to the tolerance of radical changes. A limit to the number of court cases the government can fight and win simultaneously, as vested interests will challenge them.

So I do think it's a valid criticism to suggest "please don't waste good will / political capital / the extent of the government's 'muscle' to get things done in defiance of market forces".

One could be entirely behind Corbyn's agenda and still want to make that criticism. That he should be focused. Trying to simultaneously tackle everything, and be everything to everyone at the same time is a recipe for half-arsing it all, failing to get enough of it done and feeds the narrative "he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing" - which you know is going to come from those vested interests in the media - that'll have him, and Labour, straight back out in the next election.

He does need to choose his battles more wisely.

Not least because, sorry, as much as Labour wants to push for winning a majority - and that's fine for them to aspire to that - the more realistic outcome is that they're going to need partners in a Hung Parliament, as neither of the two main parties carry an outright majority anymore. So it's also sensible strategy to rein in the policy promises to that which you can get other left-leaning parties to also sign up to.

Remember when the Lib Dems made big promises on tuition fees, but then ended up in a coalition with the Tories who were never going to allow that, and thus this annihilated the party amongst its own voters?

Corbyn should learn the lessons of that and also not go promising unicorns and rainbows that, if they end up requiring a coalition / confidence and supply, won't be instantly doomed to failure and then Labour voters made to feel, as Lib Dem voters were, that their party bullshitted them for votes.

You're assuming a "with us or against us" mentality here - that if you don't fall at Corbyn's feet unquestioningly, then you must be a Tory or something.

No, no. Labour voters can be worried about Corbyn's agenda too, for legitimate reasons, while even being supportive of his aims. They can be worried about how he's going about it, as they would quite like his policies to actually succeed.

And why on earth is the answer to any criticism to vote for the bloody Tories?

I don't know that anyone ever suggested that.

I've never voted Tory in my life and I don't intend to break that this time around either.

It is valid for those who are supportive - or, at least, broadly supportive of certain policies - to make criticisms of policy aims or implementation. To be worried that, without focus, without consensus (should things come down, as is likely, to coalitions and "confidence and supply"), without proper costings, that this is all just "promising unicorns and rainbows" that won't actually materialise. We've already had more than enough of that shit over Brexit.

If you care, you criticise.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Good friends take the potential knock and tell you when what you're wearing looks dumb - as they care more for you not coming to harm or problem, that they're willing to roll the dice on you getting angry with them. Et cetera.

Blind loyalty honestly isn't a virtue. It's always just dumb.

[(o)(o)]

So it's not the biggest issue... so what, is free broadband his only policy in the entire election manifesto or something?

No, it's not his only policy.

But it's the one we were currently discussing.

How about discussing some other policies then, rather than falling into the old fallacious argumentative strategy of attacking character, motives, or other attributes rather than the topic at hand. Cloudane made the valid point that broadband is the only policy being talked about, you made his case by mentioning NIL policies in counterargument. This is the political illiteracy we're dealing with today.

There is a limit to taxpayer's money. There is a limit to how much tax the average person can afford to pay.

Old school neoclassical thinking.

Literally just mentioned MMT - we have a sovereign currency money can be created by our government at will. A government issuing debt in its own currency cannot go bankrupt. Government debt is simply a by-product of government spending not funded by taxation, government created money can fund public services.

There's also going to be, in practice, a limit to how much "backlash" Corbyn's going to be able to generate with his more radical "re-nationalise" policies.

General population :

A limit to the tolerance of radical changes.

Most of Labour's proposals are pragmatic, costed and mainstream in developed countries Europe where they do not cause the blink of an eye.

I'll tell you what is radical! A far right government euthanising citizens, deporting people from the country in which they were born, blocking the rescue of orphans, causing widespread poverty and destitution, underfunding public services to the brink of collapse causing stabbing epidemics in the capital, crisis across health, education and policing whilst engaging in widespread illegality corruption and propaganda.

Corbyn's agenda and still want to make that criticism. That he should be focused. Trying to simultaneously tackle everything, and be everything to everyone at the same time... <Mr snippy> ...He does need to choose his battles more wisely.

Corbyn Corbyn CORBYN!!

Labour create Labour policies.

Remember when the Lib Dems made big promises on tuition fees, but then ended up in a coalition with the Tories who were never going to allow that, and thus this annihilated the party amongst its own voters?

The LibDems sold out voters on their KEY pledges. You are making excuses for dishonest, unprincipled politicians.

Corbyn should learn the lessons of that and also not go promising unicorns and rainbows that, if they end up requiring a coalition / confidence and supply, won't be instantly doomed to failure..

Ending students fees?

It is valid for those who are supportive - or, at least, broadly supportive of certain policies - to make criticisms of policy aims or implementation. To be worried that, without focus, without consensus (should things come down, as is likely, to coalitions and "confidence and supply"), without proper costings, that this is all just "promising unicorns and rainbows" that won't actually materialise.

Labour IS focused - on rebalancing the economy, and tackling prevailing issues.

Blind loyalty honestly isn't a virtue. It's always just dumb.

"Blind loyalty" is a trope being used against Labour supporters, it's just another smear tactic.

[(o)(o)]

[(o)(o)]

Here it is.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... o-2019.pdf

[Absolute_Zero]

No mention of free wheelbarrows.

[tufty]

If you thing the majority of people are going to look any further than pages 87-92, or even bother to skim-read them rather than taking what's reported in the press, along with "BONKERS CORBYN TO NATIONALISE AIDS NIGGER IMIGRUNTS", you're mental.

All that matters is Brexit.

[snaff]

Literally just mentioned MMT - we have a sovereign currency money can be created by our government at will. A government issuing debt in its own currency cannot go bankrupt. Government debt is simply a by-product of government spending not funded by taxation, government created money can fund public services.

So a government could print money and then go on Ebay and put in the highest bid for everything, and that wouldn't have any negative consequences?

[merman]

If you thing the majority of people are going to look any further than pages 87-92, or even bother to skim-read them rather than taking what's reported in the press, along with "BONKERS CORBYN TO NATIONALISE AIDS NIGGER IMIGRUNTS", you're mental.

All that matters is Brexit.

Funny then that a poll this week said that the biggest issue for voters was the NHS.

At least Labour don't stoop as low as the Tories, who set up a fake Labour manifesto site - breaching electoral rules and Google advertising rules along the way. A clear intent to deceive.