So you're trying to suggest Hammond was some sort of rogue agent who starved the NHS of funding against the wishes of all other Conservatives?

Nice try but nobody's going to fall for that one


If this becomes an election about the NHS rather than Brexit then the Conservative party will not get a majority.

[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50427369Labour pledges free broadband for all[/url



...by part-nationalising BT (despite saying BT weren't on their 'list' only a few months ago), creating a new company and taxing tech giants to run it. Do they actually listen to themselves?

We'll all be paying a 90% tax rate after a few years if this lot get into No.10.

Actually, quick, someone tell McDonnell about Steak & Blowjob Day...you never know, it could become law.

I like your last idea, finally something we can agree on



The GE bidding war is utterly ridiculous but, dare I say that those same tactics worked a treat for the Brexit referendum and some people are ok with the result that we got on that one.
Back in the day, there would have been embarrassment , followed by resignation for politicians found to have lied during election campaigns but, now, it seems, that anything goes and it's just getting dafter and dafter.
What does seem a little disgusting is the 10+ years of austerity that has suddenly stopped in it's tracks and Boris has turned into a posh male version of Viv Nicholson, who famously used the phrase spend, spend, spend.
Not only is he now happy to open the cheque book but, seems happy to reverse every cost cutting measure of the last 10 years and neither party seems too concerned about how their spending plans will be paid for.

At least Viv was spending her own money!

Indeed and both of the main parties are just pretending that they are going to spend.
Not until their manifestos are revealed, will either of the main parties be subject to any scrutiny.

For now, they are just chucking pebbles into a pond and watching how the ripples form.

As we know, manifestos are empty promises, regardless of which party we lean towards. It's a bit like a bus timetable, rough guesses, ideal timings, given fair weather etc.

What I am sure of, regardless of the GE outcome (which I expect a Conservative majority will return), is that taxes will increase, the public sector will be allowed to continue on its haphazard inefficient way, developers will still build on floodplains, and the increasing "it wasn't me, it was him" blame culture will continue.

I think both Labour and the conservatives are playing spending top trumps. Labour are winning by a country mile at the moment!

Hammond was a leading member of the cabinet it was his job to manage the country's finances - he decided who got what. You can't blame the Tories for the state of the finances they inherited from Labour. Something had to be done, did it need to be as severe as it is was not for me but Hammond seemed to revel in his stinginess.

There are huge challenges in the NHS - increased population due to better health care - its a victim of its own success. There needs to be a day of reckoning on what the public want and what they are prepared to fund.

This is an election about one thing really - which leader do you trust - and on that Corbyn's personal ratings suggest Labour will struggle.

Corbyn has some hefty spending plans but, on a personal level, I would definitely trust him over Johnson.
I'm not sure if Johnson has managed anything truthful just yet, he is as close to a rogue leader as we have ever seen in this country.
The Tories onlt tactic seem to be to rubbish the opposition- Boris still remains the clown leader, just short of a red nose.

It’s all about personal views. Boris has his plan on Brexit not sure he has deviated from that during the campaign. Same goes for spending on schools and the NHS. Corbyn has done plenty of rubbishing the opposition - £500m a day on the NHS bill etc.

Corbyn knows it will never come to pass - the Tories 1.2trn of Labour spending will not be far off - broadband will be 150-200bn by the time it’s done - 20bn is laughable

As I said earlier, it seems that wild exaggeration is now perfectly acceptable.
Even before the election was announced, Boris was promising 20000 additional police officers - which we were then informed requires 500,000 applicants, therefore, it isn't happening anytime soon.
He then promised 20 new hospitals, almost instantly scaled back to just 6.

Labour have at least tried in the past to "cost" their spending plans, whereas the Tories have point blank refused (twice) and while they are happy to peddle the £1.2 trillion myth of Labour spending, they wont allow the same algorithm to be used to cost their own pledges, which is just hilarious and is an admission that they have wildly exaggerated the Labour figure.
Mind you, we know that Boris is happy to peddle lies on opposition spending. Nobody will forget the £350million a week that we were sending to the EU








Btw, do you think that he (Boris) knows how many children he has or did he just forget.

Nothing to worry about, its just "typical Boris", he's such a fool

Deary deary me.

So it seems Labour's little broadband plan would run contrary to EU State Aid Regulations - they are therefore promising something which can only take place if we LEAVE THE EU. Erm...anyone spot a loophole in their strategy?



Yes, that's right. They just pledged something that they can only deliver if they deliver Brexit. All you ardent Labourites think that through carefully for a moment.

Not to mention that BT themselves say it would cost £100 billion over the 8-10 year period (not the total £20bn cost Labour claim) - without even considering the cost of re-nationalising BT, then buying and compensating out the likes of TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky and the rest...which will run into feckin god knows how many billions...oh and also salaries and stuff.

Labour reckon running OpenReach costs £250m a year - the City put it at closer to £2 billion.

All of this paid for, of course, by taxing Amazon and Google - not something I disagree with, but ffs are we living on a Faraway Tree cloud with Moonface here?

Not to mention 5G and whatever might follow could feasibly render home broadband obsolete within a decade. 4G was only launched in the UK in October 2012, the next solution might not be far off.

Fortunately, as the only marginal BT share price decrease shows, no-one thinks Labour is going to get anywhere near No.10 while Abbott is doing the maths.

Someone please tell me you're definitely voting Labour so I can laugh at you.

Quote ="Cronus"Deary deary me. So it seems Labour's little broadband plan would run contrary to EU State Aid Regulations - they are therefore promising something which can only take place if we LEAVE THE EU. Erm...anyone spot a loophole in their strategy? Yes, that's right. They just pledged something that they can only deliver if they deliver Brexit. All you ardent Labourites think that through carefully for a moment.'" 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.

Quote ="Cronus"Deary deary me. So it seems Labour's little broadband plan would run contrary to EU State Aid Regulations - they are therefore promising something which can only take place if we LEAVE THE EU. Erm...anyone spot a loophole in their strategy? Yes, that's right. They just pledged something that they can only deliver if they deliver Brexit. All you ardent Labourites think that through carefully for a moment.'" 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.

So Labour are saying Broadband will be free for everyone including business. So businesses that currently pay millions will get it for free?

Do we really need faster broadband than we currently have - business yet but homeowners - do they really have big issues watching porn - really?

There is also the tricky issue of shareholder compensation - McDonald said they would get UK bonds that currently yield 2% to replace BT shares that currently yield 7%. 2% will be a distant memory if Corbyn takes charge. Everyone who has a pension which has any BT shares in it will take a hit - great idea Jeremy.

There is then the thorny issue of all the firms that currently operate in the sector - approx. 600 and all their employees?

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"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"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.