General Election 2019 thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Philosorapter
- Start date
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Maybe it helps to read everything before you start quoting a few pages worth old chap
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Allegedly she does but her parents wouldn’t have.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Is this before or after she initiates the 2nd famine?
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Perhaps he/she has every right to apply for British Citizenship & get such free point of care access? If they choose not to then that is the choice to not become a British Citizen...& therefore they should pay for the care.
I agree such cases complicate such basic principle...but the alternative is to open the door to anyone & everyone who can afford the means to get to NHS premises from anywhere- we cannot sustain that
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You’re very moronically confusing two issues. Health tourism is very different to someone who has settled here and contributed to society. You wouldn’t offer them a tax refund because they’re not a british citizen so why should you deny them the rights of a tax payer because they’re not a British citizen?
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
First really interesting thing to come out of the election so far.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
The more of this stuff and it may be time to start to put forward the idea of using direct Democracy in the country's decision making processes.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Make me king and you won't have to pay for your broadband....
This is why I say McDonnell pulls the strings.
Free broadband? Put the money where it is needed. We don't need bribes.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ahh okay, I was confused about where the open borders thing had come from. The difference is that a homeless person is going to require free housing whereas a person coming here to live and work isn't going to be offered free accommodation, so for me they are not comparable, no offence
If a person is eligible to live here legally as a resident and has proven they are not a burden on the country and able to support themselves and have housing, then what is the problem with them having access to healthcare? There have always been options for the UK to enforce this but it has consistently not bothered to do it.
I was ridiculed on here for mentioning the the local police come round to your house in Italy to check you live there and review your contract, documents and even pay slips if they wish. Then guess what? A poster who lives in Spain mentioned the same thing going on there.
Yeah it was a shitty example to show the extremes.
This is what I mean, that sounds like a ridiculous system to me. Overly oppressive, but any attempt to limit it ends up with some horror story like that. I’m very torn on immigration overall. We definitely need it and benefit from it. But there’s definite social problems that come from too much too quick that I don’t think are entirely down to “the Sun made them hate foreigners”
If anyone needs me I’ll be over here banging my head against a wall.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
OpenReach is a natural monopoly and of national importance so is a good candidate for nationalisation.
I’d rather free broadband than free libraries in the 21st century to be honest. Ensuring online access for all also means you can make cost savings in service delivery elsewhere.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
...
You realise that video is satire, right?
I mean there’s evidence they do think this, Dominic Cummings said it for a start. But that video is a clip from a spoof.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But the internet is open to other companies.
It was embarrassingly unwatchable. I turned it off after a while
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Thought you were referring to Theresa May as a political heavyweight for a moment, was going to tell you to stop being ridiculous.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Were talking about the network. Not the Internet. The literal fibres and exchanges. OpenReach got that from taxpayer investment and despite Virgin and others having a free run they are still less than 10% of the network. It’s not economical to run a backbone as a new entrant, so it’s effectively a monopoly protected by the state at the moment.
As McDonnell said this morning those ISPs that do have their own kit would carry on in the same kind of arrangement they have now with OpenReach.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Worth spending about 40 billion on it?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don’t agree with all of the policy, but yes probably, it’s a key utility. I’d have a low speed free option rather than high speed.
Where my economics differ from Corbyn and McDonnell is that I’d provide the platform and let the market compete on top of it. I wouldn’t compete with the market. Same with trains. Own the rails not (all) the rolling stock. But offer a base level government service where the market fails.
What did libraries cost to set up? I’d see it as the 21st century equivalent.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Were libraries paid for gradually or were they a sudden spend like McDonnell says?
To me there are many important things to spend the money on. And giving everyone free broadband doesn't come anywhere near the top of the list. Most people can afford it. Maybe free to certain sections of the public. Like pensioners or those with children to aid there learning. But to everyone including the rich?
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
Free broadband is an interesting option to put forward. If set up right it could make a huge dent into the whole telecommunications setup including mobiles etc.
I have a few sip phones. One number does all landlines and mobiles. Also, this number is not geo-located to my location. Or in other words, I have numbers to show myself being located in Coventry and beyond which dial the same number and get through to me on home and mobile. I can trunk to a specific line when I or the caller wants.
So I have mobile calls at landline rates for basically a few pound a month and visa versa for people to contact me on between Coventry and my present location.
I think my last bill for the month came to £3 before calls which cost an absolute minimum.
Can see this way, as a new means of communicating, really taking off.
The need to use a mobile network provider when wifi is free everywhere will probably fall drastically.
I have a few sip phones. One number does all landlines and mobiles. Also, this number is not geo-located to my location. Or in other words, I have numbers to show myself being located in Coventry and beyond which dial the same number and get through to me on home and mobile. I can trunk to a specific line when I or the caller wants.
So I have mobile calls at landline rates for basically a few pound a month and visa versa for people to contact me on between Coventry and my present location.
I think my last bill for the month came to £3 before calls which cost an absolute minimum.
Can see this way, as a new means of communicating, really taking off.
The need to use a mobile network provider when wifi is free everywhere will probably fall drastically.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep I think that’s right
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The telecoms network was paid for gradually. Then we gave it away under Thatcher.
Your privilege is showing saying most people can afford broadband. I have several friends that rely on coming over to mine to fill in online forms or search for housing. There’s also dead zone where the market has failed to provide any access at all.
Having a base level of always on WiFi is also a good platform for all kinds of innovation and productivity enhancements IMO.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Bollocks. My privilege? What di you mean by that?
So can't most of your friends afford the internet? I said most people can afford it. I didn't say all. I also said it would be good for certain people to get it free. WHY is it you always ignore most of a post and pick up on one point then make out that it was everything the post was about?
So come on then. Why am I privileged?
So why should the rich get it for free?
And it was paid for gradually? You know that wasn't what I was saying. It would cost about 40 billion to make it happen. Suppose that is cheap now.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What I mean is you think Internet isn’t important. It’s nice you have the privilege of not having to access services through it.
Most people will want better than the base service. They can pay for that. Why should my friend have to jump through hoops to prove need to access government services he’s entitled to?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
In reality the system is not really oppresive and actually works well in enusring that access to public services is not abused. If governments actually care about their citiens and country and choose to invest money generated from the increased population, then it can work well, but sadly that hasn't been the case for a long-time and only their rich buddies are taken care of.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It’s saying the quiet part loud.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Did I say he should?
Would love to know how you got to that from what I said. I suppose you will be saying that I want the rich only to have it for free next.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah. No arguments here.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don’t understand your issue. Let’s say we offer 100k download speed across the board for free. Not enough for most uses but enough for light browsing to access services. Why would we have the overheads of means testing and the time lag of applying for them?
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Watching him on bbc news channel now, impressive stuff
bezzer
Well-Known Member
I work in the Telecoms industry and our 2 biggest customers are Openreach and BT. We install and commission fibre optic cables and the associated hardware on the streets and in the Telephone Exchanges. To roll out BB to every household in the UK would take years, if not decades. The cost for the hardware alone would run into the hundreds of millions. At the moment there isn't the capacity in the network to support it and despite what people think, the infrastructure from the exchanges to the end user just isn't there.
It's pie in the sky. I wonder if those who had this idea have actually spoken to people in the industry.
It's pie in the sky. I wonder if those who had this idea have actually spoken to people in the industry.
Otis
Well-Known Member
They're politicians, so probably not.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well, some radical new thinking in the supply of broadband is way overdue in terms of speed and costs. Countries like Spain are about 90% fibre optic delivering faster broadband over a vast country to the masses. We’ve got farmers who can’t do their accounts online because they’re basically on dial up. Then the cost in the U.K. and much of Western Europe for that matter is many times more than Eastern European countries. If you go somewhere like Denmark for instance free government WiFi in public places are available, Denmark is one of the most connected countries in the world and it pays dividends for business, public and tourism, bloody socialist.
I think this is a good start. Absolutely right that companies like google, Facebook etc should pay for it in Tax. A) it would be nice if they paid tax and B) arguably they stand to gain the most so it’s in their interest to invest in the countries broadband and that’s how they should see this tax, as an investment.
I think this is a good start. Absolutely right that companies like google, Facebook etc should pay for it in Tax. A) it would be nice if they paid tax and B) arguably they stand to gain the most so it’s in their interest to invest in the countries broadband and that’s how they should see this tax, as an investment.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The Conservatives 2017 manifesto promised 'by 2020 every home and every business in Britain has access to high speed broadband'.
