Snap General Election called

[Banquo]

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

Good point, well made.

Puja

There's a very good article by a reservist fireman who was at Grenfell, now retired, which takes all the emotion out of the situation, doesn't blame anyone for anything but pretty much says that.

[cashead]

Jesus, what a day to be a Tory.

Which is worse? "lol, people who burned to death in a fire are stupid" vs. "I employ people that defend rapists because rape is cool and good. Eat shit, bitches."

Good lord.

[cashead]

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

That's usually the case isn't it? It would have been counter-intuitive, but given the circumstances, it probably would have seemed the least bad of a bunch of awful options. The firefighters were caught between a rock and a hard place, and I'd wager a single staircase in that circumstance probably would have led to people getting crushed, one way of the other.

To then turn around and try to use that as a stick to beat the dead with - the dead who can not defend themselves - goes beyond ignorant, and even goes right past being vile.

That said, I think he "misspoke" again when he said "what I meant to say was..." I can't believe he still mangled up what he'd really meant to say, which should have read "I'm a stupid shitfuck moron who still needs my nannies to change my diapies because I lack the common sense to even pour piss out of a boot. Don't pay any attention to what I have to say, because I'm just a drooling moron. I am, basically, Charles II of Spain reborn, and I suspect I have a similar genetic background. It certainly should come as no surprise to anyone. If anyone was lacking in common sense, it was me, because how in the fuck did I think it was a good idea to insult people who died in a fire? Holy shit, I am a waste of tax payer money, and quite frankly, at this point, I'm pretty much begging the people of North East Somerset to vote me out. Actually no, I'm daring them to. The fact that they ever even saw fit to elect me as their MP in the first place is quite an indictment of them to be honest, and the sooner I am out of the public eye, the better you will all be for it."

I think that's what he meant to say.

[Sandydragon]

So Tom Watson has resigned as deputy leader of Labour and as an MP. Interesting timing and I wonder what damage it will do to Labour?

As election campaigns go, at the moment it seems to be a competition over who can shoot themselves in the foot the best. The Conservatives have unleashed JRM, how long before Dianne Abbot makes an appearance?

[Sandydragon]

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.

And why senior government officers are telling the public to disregard the emergency services in future I've no idea, maybe he just thinks there are votes to be had in disregarding the experts, he had some success there with Brexit, or maybe he's going to join the anti-vaxxer crowd, he seems the sort

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

[Digby]

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

Loads of problems around the building, from fire compartmentalisation, and lack of after the refit, testing materials (an ongoing problem), tracking what materials are proving unsafe and/or unfit for the task they're being assigned to from other buildings in the UK and wider across the world (and nobody seems to own this job), and of course the manufacturer of the materials. One thing I would be critical of the Fire Service around is their plans assumed their plans would work, I would hope they'll be revising that to consider what they might do in the event of a fire behaving other than as expected.

The lack of action by central government post the disaster is less than impressive, and so as a for instance building materials continue to be tested at far too a temperature

[Which Tyler]

https://www.lcdviews.com/2019/11/07/mod ... ith-itself

“Moderate” Tory MPs to stand aside for batshit crazy candidates in Tory party electoral pact with itself

IT TAKES ONE TO TANGO : THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY has been accused of a copycat strategy today after it reacted to the news of the ‘Unite to Remain’ electoral pacts with a unifying electoral pact strategy of its own.

Speaking through an interpreter at a campaign event in central London today, Tory party leader, Boris ‘there’s nothing to see in that intelligence report’ Johnson, garbled and mumbled, waffled and enthused in a collection of syllables mashed together to form a word salad.

He looked haggard, his hair looked like it was attempting an escape bid, and helpfully no one asked what it feels like to leave your wife and children, and move your young girlfriend into Downing Street. Because we don’t do moral standards in British political life anymore, at least, not under the Conservatives. Just ask serving cabinet ministers, who have been disgraced, resigned and then had their careers resurrected.

Mr Johnson’s statement was separated into its component parts and re-assembled in something akin to speech by the interpreter.

...

[Sandydragon]

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

Loads of problems around the building, from fire compartmentalisation, and lack of after the refit, testing materials (an ongoing problem), tracking what materials are proving unsafe and/or unfit for the task they're being assigned to from other buildings in the UK and wider across the world (and nobody seems to own this job), and of course the manufacturer of the materials. One thing I would be critical of the Fire Service around is their plans assumed their plans would work, I would hope they'll be revising that to consider what they might do in the event of a fire behaving other than as expected.

The lack of action by central government post the disaster is less than impressive, and so as a for instance building materials continue to be tested at far too a temperature

There seems to have been an extraordinary level of complacency in the London nFire Service. As you say, they thought their plan would work. Yet give ntheat they don't have the means to reach the top story of high rise buildings independently, that's placing a lot of reliance in the building providing the means to fight the fire and the passive controls to contain that fire. When the Commissioner stated to the enquiry that she would change nothing, that frankly was pure idiocy. The formal advice may still be to stay put in high rise buildings (especially if the cladding is legit) but training leading firemen to make decisions to move away from that policy if its going wrong must be implemented. This could happen again, so what is the plan b?

[Digby]

The stay put instruction makes a lot of sense given the conditions you describe. If the fire had been contained but 20 people had died in a crush would the fire brigade have been blamed - damn right they would have been. From the perspective of the commander on the scene, I do understand why the change in direction was delayed so long.

The real fault here is that the building wasn’t safe. I do put some blame on the fire brigade as they should carry out fire safety inspections on buildings like that, we’re they aware of the cladding? Had they planned on how to manage a fire like that, given that there had been warnings previously about hire rise fires?

Loads of problems around the building, from fire compartmentalisation, and lack of after the refit, testing materials (an ongoing problem), tracking what materials are proving unsafe and/or unfit for the task they're being assigned to from other buildings in the UK and wider across the world (and nobody seems to own this job), and of course the manufacturer of the materials. One thing I would be critical of the Fire Service around is their plans assumed their plans would work, I would hope they'll be revising that to consider what they might do in the event of a fire behaving other than as expected.

The lack of action by central government post the disaster is less than impressive, and so as a for instance building materials continue to be tested at far too a temperature

There seems to have been an extraordinary level of complacency in the London nFire Service. As you say, they thought their plan would work. Yet give ntheat they don't have the means to reach the top story of high rise buildings independently, that's placing a lot of reliance in the building providing the means to fight the fire and the passive controls to contain that fire. When the Commissioner stated to the enquiry that she would change nothing, that frankly was pure idiocy. The formal advice may still be to stay put in high rise buildings (especially if the cladding is legit) but training leading firemen to make decisions to move away from that policy if its going wrong must be implemented. This could happen again, so what is the plan b?

I've never seen the context in which the Commissioner's quote about changing nothing was made, though certainly it's allowed for some lurid headlines. But given it was reported the communication equipment was faulty, and who knew we supply faulty equipment to those on the front line, that at a minimum is something she should have been willing to change even if it meant criticising herself not acting on it for I presume budgetary reasons rather than out and out contempt for firefighters

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/town ... -p8xqlkd7f

The Conservatives have been accused of short-changing the poorest communities in favour of comparatively affluent towns to boost their election prospects.

The government promised that the multibillion-pound towns fund would “unleash the full economic potential of more than 100 places and level up communities throughout the country”.

However, 32 towns on the list fall outside the 300 worst-off in England according to rankings from the Office for National Statistics.

Analysis by The Times reveals the extent to which money has been directed towards wealthier areas that are marginal Conservative-held or target seats.

Among the least deprived locations given priority are Stocksbridge in South Yorkshire, where Angela Smith, who won the seat for Labour in 2017, is standing aside after 14 years, and Loughborough, where the...

Article continues behind paywall

[Galfon]

Troll-packers indicate the electorate are re-setting their voting intentions, maybe not to 2017 levels but with NHS in the headlines for a few weeks, no
stroll to a clear majority for BJ.
Looks like an uncomfortable few weeks on the road for everyone - the natives appear restless.

[Digby]

I've simply no idea what has possessed Labour to step in with their latest offering to roll out Xth generation internet access under the guidance of those well known students of information technology, our parliamentary MPs. It's a daft area to start on, the buyback model proposed is horrendous, they're trying to act in an area the market/progress could well make their actions redundant, and they're not thinking about workers, BT pensions, and the wider pensions and insurance

I remain of the view there are areas the government can more reasonably act in the public interest than the market, but surely you start with rail, water or power rather than this

[Puja]

I've simply no idea what has possessed Labour to step in with their latest offering to roll out Xth generation internet access under the guidance of those well known students of information technology, our parliamentary MPs. It's a daft area to start on, the buyback model proposed is horrendous, they're trying to act in an area the market/progress could well make their actions redundant, and they're not thinking about workers, BT pensions, and the wider pensions and insurance

I remain of the view there are areas the government can more reasonably act in the public interest than the market, but surely you start with rail, water or power rather than this

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187

The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8 billion a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7 billion – around a quarter of the widely-quoted £196 billion price tag calculated by the CBI last month

Puja

[Digby]

I've simply no idea what has possessed Labour to step in with their latest offering to roll out Xth generation internet access under the guidance of those well known students of information technology, our parliamentary MPs. It's a daft area to start on, the buyback model proposed is horrendous, they're trying to act in an area the market/progress could well make their actions redundant, and they're not thinking about workers, BT pensions, and the wider pensions and insurance

I remain of the view there are areas the government can more reasonably act in the public interest than the market, but surely you start with rail, water or power rather than this

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187

The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8 billion a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7 billion – around a quarter of the widely-quoted £196 billion price tag calculated by the CBI last month

Puja

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

[Banquo]

I've simply no idea what has possessed Labour to step in with their latest offering to roll out Xth generation internet access under the guidance of those well known students of information technology, our parliamentary MPs. It's a daft area to start on, the buyback model proposed is horrendous, they're trying to act in an area the market/progress could well make their actions redundant, and they're not thinking about workers, BT pensions, and the wider pensions and insurance

I remain of the view there are areas the government can more reasonably act in the public interest than the market, but surely you start with rail, water or power rather than this

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187

The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8 billion a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7 billion – around a quarter of the widely-quoted £196 billion price tag calculated by the CBI last month

Puja

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

[Digby]

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187



Puja

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Everytime they start banging on about the evils of dividends I do wonder what their wider plans are for pensions and insurance companies are, seeing as that's where so much of the money goes. And in this BT example I wonder quite specifically with regard to the BT pension what the BT board think about removing a trance of future earnings and how they see that impacting their pension liabilities, I'm pretty confident Labour will complain in the event the BT pension scheme isn't kept funded, and then we get proposals like they've come out with today

[Banquo]

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Everytime they start banging on about the evils of dividends I do wonder what their wider plans are for pensions and insurance companies are, seeing as that's where so much of the money goes. And in this BT example I wonder quite specifically with regard to the BT pension what the BT board think about removing a trance of future earnings and how they see that impacting their pension liabilities, I'm pretty confident Labour will complain in the event the BT pension scheme isn't kept funded, and then we get proposals like they've come out with today

You don't need to edddicate me on the BT pension fund . They were my employer, as were Openreach (though sadly am not on one of their very rewarding pension schemes). This is a proper can'o'worms- esp as Openreach more or less props BT up from a profit point of view, whilst the Group provides the capital engine for e.g. fibre roll out.

Your point about dividends is well made- these shares make up massive chunks of the Institutional investor portfolios.

[Puja]

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187



Puja

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

While I'm not sure I endorse this broadband plan, there is quite a bit of evidence that government run things can work better when it comes to national infrastructure where the primary emphasis isn't profit. RAILTRACK springs immediately to mind.

Broadband could be another example. There is no profit-based motivation for Openreach to roll out full fibre. It costs them a lot of money and the benefits that it brings won't be in a form that earns them profit. Even when government-incentivised to do so, they will do so in cities because that with get them the most return for their outlay, not rural areas where it's more needed and where the economy gets a bigger return for the outlay.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it's something I'd be leading with or doing in this fashion, but if we want widespread full fibre broadband and the (putative) economic benefits that that brings, it does feel like a national project rather than one to leave to the private sector.

Puja

[Stom]

I will note that they're not planning on nationalising broadband providers, but nationalising the network infrastructure - BT OpenReach, rather than BT. It makes a bit more sense when you look at it that way, as doing that allows them to control the rollout of fibre broadband based on what's best for the country, rather than having to chuck incentives at a private company and hope they hit all the spots needed.

I agree with you it's not the biggest priority though and it's an easy attack line opened up by the Conservatives. They should stick to rail, water, power and post office, as those are the ones that resonate well with the public.

Incidentally, I found this interesting: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 1573804187



Puja

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

You think it'd be worse than Brexit for your pension?

[Banquo]

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

You think it'd be worse than Brexit for your pension?

yep. And could get both under Labour too. Think Labour are overcooking now.

[Digby]

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Everytime they start banging on about the evils of dividends I do wonder what their wider plans are for pensions and insurance companies are, seeing as that's where so much of the money goes. And in this BT example I wonder quite specifically with regard to the BT pension what the BT board think about removing a trance of future earnings and how they see that impacting their pension liabilities, I'm pretty confident Labour will complain in the event the BT pension scheme isn't kept funded, and then we get proposals like they've come out with today

You don't need to edddicate me on the BT pension fund . They were my employer, as were Openreach (though sadly am not on one of their very rewarding pension schemes). This is a proper can'o'worms- esp as Openreach more or less props BT up from a profit point of view, whilst the Group provides the capital engine for e.g. fibre roll out.

Your point about dividends is well made- these shares make up massive chunks of the Institutional investor portfolios.

I used to work for the group that administers the BT Pension, or did, I'll not note here how well that often went as I could probably get myself into a lot of trouble (it did also go well a lot of the time)

[Stom]

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

You think it'd be worse than Brexit for your pension?

yep.

Why? (Honest question)

[Mellsblue]

Labour will be nationalising BT’s broadband retail arm, per the Guardian. There is no other way of providing ‘free broadband for the country’. Unless Virgin etc are given free access - how likely under a Lab govt? - then they will fold taking jobs, direct and indirect, and shareholders money with them. Even if the don’t charge private providers to use the infrastructure, how do those providers pay their staff and the rent on their buildings housing said staff if they can’t charge customers for the service. Unless, that is, they prop up the internet providers from other business streams, ie your internet isn’t actually free you’re just paying a bit more for other services to fund the ‘free’ bit. If the other providers do pull out, you would then have a govt as the monopoly provider. Uh oh.

The plans to unilaterally tax tech firms is a worry. Most people seem to accept it needs to be done multilaterally. France, Germany etc would pounce on luring the tech firms and their direct and indirect jobs, with their associated tax revenues, as they have with banks after the referendum result.

I’ve not wholly against renationalising the infrastructure, assuming proper compensation for shareholders, and I’ve no issue with taxing tech companies if done multilaterally, in fact I wholly support it, but this isn’t the way to go about it.

[Digby]

Labour will be nationalising BT’s broadband retail arm, per the Guardian. There is no other way of providing ‘free broadband for the country’. Unless Virgin etc are given free access - how likely under a Lab govt? - then they will fold taking jobs, direct and indirect, and shareholders money with them. Even if the don’t charge private providers to use the infrastructure, how do those providers pay their staff and the rent on their buildings housing said staff if they can’t charge customers for the service. Unless, that is, they prop up the internet providers from other business streams, ie your internet isn’t actually free you’re just paying a bit more for other services to fund the ‘free’ bit. If the other providers do pull out, you would then have a govt as the monopoly provider. Uh oh.

The plans to unilaterally tax tech firms is a worry. Most people seem to accept it needs to be done multilaterally. France, Germany etc would pounce on luring the tech firms and their direct and indirect jobs, with their associated tax revenues, as they have with banks after the referendum result.

I’ve not wholly against renationalising the infrastructure, assuming proper compensation for shareholders, and I’ve no issue with taxing tech companies if done multilaterally, in fact I wholly support it, but this isn’t the way to go about it.

it will also naturally deliver in the longer term a less efficient worse performing more expensive solution than the market.

If they want to break up some large companies taken to have some unhealthy monopoly position or overly dominant market position that would seem a much better way to go, but this is just weird

[Banquo]

I know they're only talking about taking part of BT back, or at least they're only talking about that limited move for now, but still beyond it's a weird area to start it's an ill considered approach

Anyone with a pension fund planning on retiring any time soon....eg me....should be turning it into cash about now, assuming Labour get any sniff of power.

Personally, I'm not convinced government run anything will be better than what exists today, there's not a great deal of proof in the UK that this will be the case, unless I've missed something.

While I'm not sure I endorse this broadband plan, there is quite a bit of evidence that government run things can work better when it comes to national infrastructure where the primary emphasis isn't profit. RAILTRACK springs immediately to mind.

Broadband could be another example. There is no profit-based motivation for Openreach to roll out full fibre. It costs them a lot of money and the benefits that it brings won't be in a form that earns them profit. Even when government-incentivised to do so, they will do so in cities because that with get them the most return for their outlay, not rural areas where it's more needed and where the economy gets a bigger return for the outlay.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it's something I'd be leading with or doing in this fashion, but if we want widespread full fibre broadband and the (putative) economic benefits that that brings, it does feel like a national project rather than one to leave to the private sector.

Puja

Network Rail? The cause of a great deal of angst from passengers, even if they blame the operators. Basket case.