UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

{{ Some more detail on Labours mad nationalise broadband scheme -}}

'A Labour government would compensate shareholders by issuing government bonds....he said MPs would set the value of the company at the time of it being taken into public ownership. Labour would add an extra £15bn to the government's existing £5bn broadband strategy, with the money to come from the party's proposed Green Transformation Fund...A new entity, British Broadband, would run the network, with maintenance - estimated to cost £230m a year - to be covered by the new tax on companies such as Apple and Google...Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership...The company (BT) has disputed the cost of rolling out fibre broadband to every home and business, saying it would cost closer to £40bn than £20bn...TechUK, which represents many UK tech firms, said: "These proposals would be a disaster for the telecoms sector and the customers that it serves.'- BBC

I think its a great idea. The service will mean the highest speed wifi so nobody would complain about the service, it will be free, again why would anyone complain about that, and it will create jobs idem. Tech giants have been taking the piss for too long, they must pay tax, and there is no way they would just have a strop and walk out of a massive UK market. It will be rolled out to those in rural areas first. The alternative is being ripped off by the private sector. If they can pull this off I think it will be a massive bonus for everyone.

{{ It removes consumer choice. I dont have BT broadband because its not the best most cost expensive choice in my view. I go with plusnet, which is a private company that started small in Yorkshire somewhere and now is one of the bigger providers in the UK. Thats my choice. BT throttles speeds at peak times and other things I can avoid by making a different choice.
And what of all those jobs in the north of england, the customer service call centres, the manufactureres of modems and the small local British advertising companies that rely on small business to market for? And other knock on effects, when the factory closes the wee shop that got by for years on the corner selling rolls and sandwiches to the workers, its gone too, the local delivery company that drove the vans back and forth, gone too. These areas need investment, not exsisting successful private tech companies bulldozed by a one size fits all government monolith.

Then there is the issue of personal security, do you trust say a Tory government to have potential access to every single UK persons internet usage? To decide what we are allowed to see or not? Whats in the nations interests? Because I dont.

This scheme would force me to be on BT broadband, which I dont want to be, like it or not. It requires that the government run it properly and the service is good, and speeds arent throtled despite everyone being on the same network and it isnt used for nefarious deeds. If its costs outstrips the funding it will supposedly get from the named sources then either taxes need to be raised elswhere for it, ie us the tax payer, or the service will suffer.
They say its free but the cost seems wildly underestimated of doing it, and it comes on the back of nationalising rail and energy and water too at same time.
The overall borrowing the UK would have to do initially to pay for all this is eye watering.

And thinking you are going to get big tech companies who can move about countries, relocate at a whim, spin everything out in courts with expensive lawyers for years is a pipe dream. Reforming tax laws in coordination with partners, say if we were still in the EU, that would be a good idea and have much higher chance of actually increasing revenue than this hair brained scheme to destroy an already exisisting, successful commercial marketplace thats generating tax revenue already and providing employment often in areas desperately in need of it.}}

{{ An important figure to keep an eye out for on the Labour side is McClusky, leader of the Unite Union and the biggest donor to the Corbyn cause.
Unite has massive influence on Labour policy and will be one of the main driving forces behind deciding what goes in the Labour manifesto.

Unlike Corbyn who is trying to avoid at all costs having an opinion on anything, McClusky is not short of being firm in his, and if anyone was harbouring any hopes that Labour would support remaining in the EU forget them-

"He (McClusky) has accepted the need to offer a referendum with Remain on the ballot - but only if a Labour government still negotiates a Leave option of its own.
Mr McCluskey has already called for shadow ministers to refrain from setting out how they would personally campaign in a referendum during this election.'

but he is quite clear about where they really stand-

'Labour is not a Remain party...we will negotiate a credible exit from the European union."

So there you have it, if you want Remain dont vote Labour. }}

McClusky does not represent the majority of remain Labour MPs and members, he can say what he likes, he isn't in Westminster.

..and back to the real 'enemies of the people..the Tories are being investigated by Scotland Yard for election fraud. quelle surprise.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/16/police-assessing-claims-that-tories-offered-peerages-to-brexit-party

he can say what he likes, he isn't in Westminster.- Figg

{{yeah his being unelected is just one of the problems I have with him. But its untrue to say he doesnt have influence and power becuase hes not at Westminster - in the same BBC interview he openly states that it was him who pressured on Labours refusal to back remain in this election, it was his union that insisited that they have a 2nd referendum and that Shadow Ministers not state their position leave or remain this election- all things which are current actual Labour positions.

Remember it was McClusky who refused the vote of no confindence in Corbyn afer the first referendum when Corbyn was going to get voted out as leader, his Union have backed Corbyn snce the start and provided him with over 11 million in funds. That buys influence.

The BBC describe that influence as 'far-reaching in Labour circles.' And adds- 'Close allies from his union have served in the leader of the opposition's office and at party HQ - including Jennie Formby, Labour's general secretary. Members of his union are also influential on the party's ruling National Executive Committee.'

McCLusky is very much important, his voice carries a lot of weight in Labour and Unites position on policies will be one of the main deciding factors in what goes in, or not, to a Labour manifesto. }}

{{ Sadly polling is not good for Labour either so far. The Tories continue to pull ahead slowly but surely, and whilst Labour have firmed up their position in the polls they are not only lagging about 10 points behind the Tories even worse they are about 10% below the share of the vote they got at the last election, which they lost.

There is time to turn it round yet, a lot is going to depend on the manifesto Labour produce and just how crazy left it is. To win Labour need those middle ground voters, and middle class voters (the working class and poor have never been the majority in electing a government ever, the middle class vote more than any other class do) I think a far left manifesto will not appeal to them.

edit add- talking manifesto one area to keep a close eye on, or one word to be more precise, will come in the section on free movement.
This is a contentious one between Labour grass roots and Labour party and unions.
At conference the grass roots not only voted to maintain freedom of movement, even in the case of Brexit but to also 'extend' it. And that word, 'extend' is the one to watch for.
The Unions, in particular Unite and McClusky really don't like it, fearing it plays into Tory hands in Leave Labour seats where immigration was the main factor in voting to leave.
If the promise to not just keep freedom of movement but extend it makes it in then the grassroots have won (they did overwhelmingly vote to make it policy after all in a democratic vote) but if  its absent (and I think it will be) then its a sign that McClusky and the unions (unelected and undemocratic) are pulling the strings far more than the grassroots of the party are.

My personal prediction is for a classic Corbyn fence sitting fudge- the manifesto will promise to keep freedom of movement, the Unions will block the word 'extend' and Corbyn and co will try to placate leave voting Labour areas with promises of reforming hiring practices and workers rights to protect workers from unfair immigrant competition as a means to both have freedom of movement, keeping party grass roots in check, and to appease leave voters with promises they won't be adversely affected by it.  Place your bets on a Corbyn fudge!!}}

{{ I should point out he is referring to the NHS in England and Wales here. The Scottish NHS, whilst having suffered similar funding cuts from the Westminster end is in nowhere near as bad a state overall as in England as health is devolved, and the privitisation encouraged by the Tories down south has not happened here. }}

{{ Watched Corbyn on Marr today. I wouldnt waste your time unless you like an infurating exercise in fence sitting, best summed up by the BBC report of it-

'Mr Corbyn deflected questions on whether free movement could continue in its current form...He also declined to say whether he wanted the UK to leave or remain in the EU.'

Make a fucking choice man! }}

{{ That interview in full, for those who can bear to watch it! }}



And for those who dont want to watch whole thing just see Corbyn fence sitting here you go- }}

meanwhile...the Tories are being accused of election fraud by Farage, and nearly killing hundreds of students in a tower fire in Bolton after not sorting out dangerous cladding. again.

{{Its hard to care about Tories or Farage to be honest. I am more concerned with Labour because right now the Tories are still well on course for a win, and thats bad.
Corbyn winning is bad too, but as far as Scotland getting the hell out of this mess, hes the lesser of two evils.
Doesnt make him competent, good, or like he has a clue though, as he clearly doesnt.
And if Labour, as it seems they will, produce the most 'radical' manifesto ever then they will sink without a trace I reckon.
Right now the only way I can see Corbyn winning is if Boris and the Tories do something so mindbogglingly stupid they hand him the win- he seems incapable of gettng a win on his own. }} }}

I think there is a long long list of mind-bogglingly stupid. Like election fraud, Russian interference documents, Johnson shagging, betraying and giving his girlfriend £100,000 out of public money, letting Prince Andrew cozy-up to dictators, nearly murdering students, actually murdering the sick and poor, allowing Patel anywhere near migrants, letting Javid anywhere near a lie detector machine. It would be easier to list the things not mind-bogglingly stupid.
Mystic Figg predicts that someone is going to leak the Russia documents and find proof that they offered that repulsive harridan Widdecombe a job.

{{ So far Figg, stupid as all those things might be, the general electorate seem to either dont know or dont care going on the consistent 10 point lead polls keep showing the Tories with.
I think the leadership debate will be a big factor- and thats Corbyn best chance to shift the numbers if he can rattle Boris- but Corbyn is also wide open in it to being exposed for his fence sitting and contradtictions. So a lot will ride on it I think.}}

talking of mind-boggling, did you see the Prince Andrew interview?    

-------

https://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1433