Roads and pavements in this country are a disgrace thanks in some measure due to Broadband introduction. Extending it further in many cases where tenants have no interest, can only make things worse.

Can broadband not be provided without digging every road in the country up? I seem to be able to access the internet quite happily on my phone?

Quote The Ghost of '99="The Ghost of '99"Well firstly Corbyn is hardly pro-European, which is part of his problem: his anti-EU bonafides are much more established and consistent than Johnson's. State aid rules are pretty flexible on broadband provision so don't get too excited by this reporting - and see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar ... ent-models for suggested models which includes state-ownership of the infrastructure. But as a concept let's think about BT Openreach: a privately-owned defacto monopoly. This is the problem with the ideological privatisation of utilities: it's not a real free market therefore the structures around where the competition bit comes in is woolly. If one company owns the pipes or connections they have a monopoly and the competition comes in their being obliged through legislation to let other operators use their infrastructure to provide the service. There's no real reason why the same end-user free market can't exist with governmental ownership of the infrastructure - which would be arguably more in the national interest.'" 10/10 for even trying to defend this idiocy. But as time passes the policy is exposed to even more ridicule from pretty much every quarter. It's a farce, and you're not daft (even if you're misguided ) so I will assume you know it. I won't waste time typing an(other) essay, sufficed to say [url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt[uthis article[/u[/url covers most of the main points, including state aid.

Quote The Ghost of '99="The Ghost of '99"Well firstly Corbyn is hardly pro-European, which is part of his problem: his anti-EU bonafides are much more established and consistent than Johnson's. State aid rules are pretty flexible on broadband provision so don't get too excited by this reporting - and see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-mar ... ent-models for suggested models which includes state-ownership of the infrastructure. But as a concept let's think about BT Openreach: a privately-owned defacto monopoly. This is the problem with the ideological privatisation of utilities: it's not a real free market therefore the structures around where the competition bit comes in is woolly. If one company owns the pipes or connections they have a monopoly and the competition comes in their being obliged through legislation to let other operators use their infrastructure to provide the service. There's no real reason why the same end-user free market can't exist with governmental ownership of the infrastructure - which would be arguably more in the national interest.'" 10/10 for even trying to defend this idiocy. But as time passes the policy is exposed to even more ridicule from pretty much every quarter. It's a farce, and you're not daft (even if you're misguided ) so I will assume you know it. I won't waste time typing an(other) essay, sufficed to say [url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt[uthis article[/u[/url covers most of the main points, including state aid.

An interesting contradiction from Boris today.
After trying to convince us that cutting corporation tax will see tax revenues increase, due to more businesses relocating to the UK, it no appears that, surprise, surprise, he is now scrapping the proposed cut, to help fund increases in spending on the NHS.

Can anyone spot the latest lie to come from our leaders mouth ?

Was it the original message regarding the increased revenues from cuts in corporation tax or the promise to spend more on the NHS.

His lips were definitely moving so both of these may be untrue

Reducing CT rates has seen significant increases in revenues - so that is the reality. A further reduction could well see an even larger take.

McDonald no further nationalisation and then he has added BT - I don't see you call him a liar?

Fwiw, I've no time for Corbyn or McDonnel and of course you are right about McDonnel on "no more nationalisation".
However, Boris hasn't actually stuck to ANYTHING that he's said, yet and it also seems like his blonde American "associate" is going to expose him over yet another issue but, that one is still simmering in the background.

Apparently what you are trying to tell us about CT isn't true anymore and "eventually you reach a point where receipts no longer grow" despite further reductions, although you can expect this stance to change again, either this afternoon or tomorrow.



Also as stated previously, on a personal level, I'd trust Corbyn over Johnson all day long

With Johnson only having a majority of 5034 in Uxbridge he could very well lose his seat.
If that did happen surely that would be the highlight of the night whatever the result.

No what they have probably realised the have reached the point of diminishing returns - just as Corbyn will find when he starts raising them

Johnson said he would increase police numbers he has, he said he would increase spending on hospitals he has, he said he would get a deal he did he would have got a better deal had the remainers in parliament hadnt under mind his discussions.

That is a distinct possibility although long bailey’s face would even more sour than usual if she didn’t win

It's OK, Cordouroy Cringebin got a free ride from ITV and still couldn't answer a single question. The man is a joke, as is any idiot that would vote for him.

Alexander Johnson repeating the lie that a 26% corporation tax proposed by Labour would be the highest in Europe. It would be nowhere near.

His supporters have so much similarities with Trump fans, no matter how many times he’s proven to be a liar they can see no wrong in him.