Imagine sacrifying your wealth, job and future just to prevent Corbyn becoming the next PM.
They shook. This is the kind of desperate front page we don't usually see till the week before the election.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK General Election 12th December 2019 |OT1| Hindsight is 20/19 (Tory majority confirmed)
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
I know, he was at the anti-nuclear demonstration along with The SNP. It's more of a frustration than trying to get at him, the SNP are doing it because he's in Scotland and they're attempting to state even in Scotland Corbyn will have to be mindful what he says as his main voting block is in England.
It furthers their narrative they are the only party who can truly look out for Scotland and in some regards it is true. This is why there is such a tension around the union right now, not exactly helped by Scotland voting remain.
2014 was a rollercoaster of emotions, but for better or worse this feels far more important. I think Scotland will end up independent one day irrespective of any of this, but putting my belief in independence aside, the rUK really need a fucking win in December. Independence is never a guarantee, or I should say, even if I think the UK union will disolve one day, hey, it could be when I'm fucking 80 and/or dead.
The goal right now has to be stopping the Tories and doing something about Brexit. If it all goes to shit due to a Tory majority or something, then yeah, full Braveheart mode.
After seeing this I don't think the Daily Mail readers are going to vote Labour. This is a game changer.
They shook. This is the kind of desperate front page we don't usually see till the week before the election.
It's not set by the papers though; they're spoon fed it from the same source (most likely Cummings etc). The papers are a good scapegoat to make them look impartial.
The stories that are followed up on are set by what the papers think is important, the exception is when something has happened after they've been printed.
You had to tell me about 500mb.
Not importance, coverage and agenda. It's anything that they think can help spin their rhetoric (not the same as important imo). There's a reason why journalistic integrity is always questioned lol.
The thing is, both CCHQ and their allies in the press have already been fully on the gas with the fear mongering - I don't see who else they're going to convince by upping the ante.
That broadband policy is sound as fuck. No wonder Tom Watson went quietly, he wants to spend more time with Destiny 2 in retirement.
And yes - that Daily Mail cover SCREAMS "we're shook". Lads better turn it down a notch or there'll be fuck all left to use for the rest of the election.
And yes - that Daily Mail cover SCREAMS "we're shook". Lads better turn it down a notch or there'll be fuck all left to use for the rest of the election.
P.S - although it'll probably be lost on most people, the comparison to Japan is quite apt considering WE could have had the same amount of full-fibre broadband coverage as them by now... if it wasn't for the privatisation of BT by Thatcher.
Neoliberalism: not even once.
Neoliberalism: not even once.
Fibre and Pendolino trains are just two great examples of Thatcherism costing the country. I won't get started on the North Sea oil...
I love the idea of free fibre, I just don't think he should of said that the tech giants are going to pay for it...
Just ask France, sure they have passed their tax law but are about to have tariffs put on them by the USA for taxing American companies. The EU can not agree on a way to tax these companies, so I need to see the detail is how McDonnell is going to achieve what others have not been able to
The OECD are also looking at ways to tax them, so will McDonnell wait for their report or want his own rules?
BBC are reporting it will be a UK based tax like the France one, not the OECD tax, so that means tariffs from the USA, the French are being threatened with Tax code Section 891, the provision that would allow Trump to double income taxes on French citizens and companies in the U.S
Just ask France, sure they have passed their tax law but are about to have tariffs put on them by the USA for taxing American companies. The EU can not agree on a way to tax these companies, so I need to see the detail is how McDonnell is going to achieve what others have not been able to
The OECD are also looking at ways to tax them, so will McDonnell wait for their report or want his own rules?
BBC are reporting it will be a UK based tax like the France one, not the OECD tax, so that means tariffs from the USA, the French are being threatened with Tax code Section 891, the provision that would allow Trump to double income taxes on French citizens and companies in the U.S
Last edited:
I had to stop myself from confronting a gammon on the train last night.
He was drunk and spouting the usual shit.
"Look I don't like any of them, but Boris is at least a bit of a character and was London mayor. We've just got to ensure Corbyn doesn't get in with his Marxist terrorist sympathising IRA loving views"
These kind of cunts can't be talked to with any sort of reason.
He was drunk and spouting the usual shit.
"Look I don't like any of them, but Boris is at least a bit of a character and was London mayor. We've just got to ensure Corbyn doesn't get in with his Marxist terrorist sympathising IRA loving views"
These kind of cunts can't be talked to with any sort of reason.
A lot of this is deeply wrong, or rather it mixes hope and precedence with what is actually legally required. The Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until they resign, and they are not compelled to resign even in the event of losing a Vote of No Confidence. What has made previous PM's resign is the desire to keep the Queen out of politics, as well as a desire to keep the basics of democracy functioning in the country. But that might not apply when you get unscrupulous people as PM. We've relied on the 'good chap' theory of government for far too long.
You can now have the scenario of Parliament clearly not having confidence in the Government, by refusing to pass key Government legislation, but also refusing to vote them out because they fear the alternative as well. That paralysis can continue if Speaker Hoyle allows for back bench legislation in the same way that Bercow did, but if not, they'll need to get Boris out by voting confidence in a Corbyn led administration.
Of course, even if Parliament votes confidence in a Corbyn led administration, Boris still isn't compelled to resign, which will set up what I believe constitutional experts call 'interesting times.'
Fuck me this is something you'd expect a brexit party nutter to wade in to, not a conservative minister.
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory accusations
Shit you're right, I guess I should vote Tory
This election really is becoming dominated by spending pledges.
Not that I disapprove of spending money against climate change.
It's great to see, but I'm concerned that the country is so indoctrinated to fucking austerity at this point that it's also really easy for them to successfully attack Labour over it.
Boris is talking absolute bollocks on bbc news this morning in a studio interview. He's saying absolutely nothing while waffling on and on
Except somehow he never has any depth in his responses. Just the same old buzzwords
oh Jesus.
"How can people relate to you the family man "
I just cant
They are tearing his mopping apart on the air. And he still refuses to discuss his relatives.
What's he going to say, that his brother hates him, and his sister hates him, lol?
His answer to "how are you relatable to the general public" was basically "I have many relatives".
Lmao
I think he'll get destroyed in the Neil interview.
I mean, so will Corbyn and Swinson but yeah!
I guess one of the saving graces is that even the Tories are looking to spend more going forward now.
But yeah, I'd love a fuck ton of money to go into fighting climate change.
Sometimes I wonder why the opposition and parts of the media attack Corbyn using that sort of bollocks because it can easily be disproved but then I remember people like that exist who'll believe just about anything.
The infrastructure part of this broadband proposal I can definitely get behind. Having world class infrastructure that everyone has equal access to makes a lot of sense.
I don't support removing the retail model though, nor do I feel it is necessary. We actually have a lot of competition at the retail level and very low broadband prices with good differentiation. It's evidence of a regulated competitive market that works. Back in the ADSL2 days competition was fierce and prices were super cheap. All we need is to improve the infrastructure and restore that level of fair access. Giving everyone "free" broadband just seems an unnecessary extra step.
I don't support removing the retail model though, nor do I feel it is necessary. We actually have a lot of competition at the retail level and very low broadband prices with good differentiation. It's evidence of a regulated competitive market that works. Back in the ADSL2 days competition was fierce and prices were super cheap. All we need is to improve the infrastructure and restore that level of fair access. Giving everyone "free" broadband just seems an unnecessary extra step.
If it wasn't going to be free for every household, then I'd definitely say free or heavily subsidised access for poorer households would be the next vital step.
I'm assuming even removing or hugely reducing line rental would cause prices to hit rock bottom?
The problem is that kind of market strategy is always with an eye on putting your competitors out of business then once you're the major player you jack prices up.
Utilities should be state owned, too important to leave to the market.
BT retail already have to offer subsidised line rental to these households. The problem is that it's not very well publicised and can often have restrictions around the broadband packages you could take alongside it. Extend this to all ISPs and mandate it must include ~50mb/50mb fibre broadband and publicise this fact and I think that about covers it for me.
Some retail ISPs offer better customer service, some allow specialist features like static IPs, most bundle a highly subsidised high end router and others discount it if you have a mobile or TV package. Why get rid of that competition that is actually working in the consumers favour where it is only at the network level where competition has failed the consumer?
So who is in Labour circles? was this broadband a back of the fag packet policy? There is a lot of kick back happening in the media..
835 million in wages yearly from openreach, thousands of jobs to be lost from the retail side.. Virgin, Sky et al, he said they can keep selling, but when questioned why someone would buy their services when they can get it free he did not really answer
835 million in wages yearly from openreach, thousands of jobs to be lost from the retail side.. Virgin, Sky et al, he said they can keep selling, but when questioned why someone would buy their services when they can get it free he did not really answer
Well, just having given it about 2 minutes of thought, someone might decide to go for a private service if it provides more than the free service does.
Perhaps the free service will have data caps
Perhaps the free service won't allow certain types of usage (p2p, streaming etc.)
The free service probably wont include bundled in extras, such as TV, streaming subscriptions etc.
The free service might have a speed limit (e.g 70Mbps) whereas a private service could go faster.
The above are all restrictions that would make me think "I need to pay for private Broadband", but there are certainly thousands, if not millions of people in the UK that would do just fine with that.
I too am slightly confused by the free broadband policy. The UK's internet seems like a pretty healthy market to be honest. There are a while host of different providers and price points.
Also, with the increasing feasibility of mobile broadband it should start to improve even further.
Also, with the increasing feasibility of mobile broadband it should start to improve even further.
That's a solid answer right there, really good counter to his argument.
but that is not what is on offer here, he did not come out and say we are going to offer full fibre at half speed to allow the other parties a fair market...
the general agreement is this is hugely good for the U.K..59 billion which is huge, but there will be thousands of job losses
But why spend all that money to provide an inferior service when the consumer costs for far better services are already very competitive?
- Status