UK's Labor Party Promises Free Fiber Broadband For All, Paid For By Taxing Tech Companies (bbc.com) 139
Only 7% of the U.K. has access to full-fiber broadband, according to the country's telecommunications regulator. But now long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo writes:
With a General Election next month the UK's Labour Party has promised to give every home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030. The party would nationalise OpenReach, which owns the existing copper network, to deliver the policy and introduce a tax on tech giants to help pay for it. The plan will cost £20 billion, but the opposition Conservative Party is promising to bring fibre to every home by 2025 for just £5 billion in partnership with industry.
Either way the UK's ageing, slow broadband infrastructure may be getting an upgrade.
The party claims it would "literally eliminate bills for millions of people across the UK," according to the BBC, with the Labor party's shadow chancellor telling them that companies like Apple and Google "should pay their way and other countries are following suit."
Either way the UK's ageing, slow broadband infrastructure may be getting an upgrade.
The party claims it would "literally eliminate bills for millions of people across the UK," according to the BBC, with the Labor party's shadow chancellor telling them that companies like Apple and Google "should pay their way and other countries are following suit."
Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that the Slashdot "editors" keep promoting this garbage? Are they really THIS stupid, or is BizX decreeing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's as bad as borrowing from future generations to pay off current generations to get elected now.
Re: (Score:3)
he was shot at once
He intentionally flew his helicopter between anti-ship missiles and their targets to try and get them to lock onto him instead, to save the ships.
Have at him for everything else, but don't be knocking him on this one.
Re:Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
User pays is not equal to free stuff. The tech corporations profit by internet infrastructure, whilst cheating en masse via tax havens and corrupt countries cheating with licence fees. They should pay taxes, so start taxing the fuckers. Perhaps a bandwidth tax, so no tax a residential levels of bandwidth but bloody big taxes as tech company data mining levels of bandwidth. USER PAYS.
Sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I think it stands a chance of happening. Labour are so far up their own asses right now thanks to Corbyn that they can't even beat a deeply unpopular minority government.
Re:Sounds great (Score:4, Insightful)
While a national infrastructure
like roads ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You have no idea how densely populated the UK is.Building lots of new private roads would mean knocking down lots of buildings and no one is interested in making the investment, For example the new highspeed rail link between London and Birmingham, Manchester is going to cost £78 Billion. That is about five times the cost of a similar rail network in a less populated country. Roads are remarkably well maintained considering that we have just spent 10 years in austerity because of the banking crisis, I
Re:Sounds great (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have they ever done for us?
Mod Parent Up :) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I just thought of that line myself. I haven't had mod points since 2003, but if I did I would would myself up.
Are you a fan of guano? (Score:2)
GP suggests that public schools do a better job than private schools. That waiting 16 weeks (four months) to see a specialist in the govt healthcare system is better than a next-day appointment in the private system. That till roads will never get you there faster.
Just curious, are you a fan of guano for fertilizer? Because that post is bat shit crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
GP suggests that public schools
This is a thread about the UK. In the UK, public schools are very expensive, very posh private schools.State schools are the ones run by the state.
Everything you say is wrong (Score:2)
You're just wrong. You'd think on a science forum like
The UK NHS says they make people wait (Score:2)
> People in the UK & Canada don't wait to see specialists
According to the NHS's own records they sure do.
--
The committeeâ(TM)s report found that less than half of NHS trusts and foundation trusts currently met the 18 week waiting time standard for treatment, and only 38% met the 62 day standard from referral to treatment for cancer patients.
--
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4... [doi.org]
> you really, really need to lay off the Fox News Brand (tm) Kool-Aid
You think NHS is lying to make themselves look ba
Re: (Score:2)
And the answer is what? To get rid of the NHS and make everyone pay? Nah thanks, I'd rather take the NHS every single fucking moment of every day over what the US has right now - sure, you get immediate care, but you also get immediate bills and problems with people not being able to afford treatments. I'd much rather take the NHS over that shit fest.
The US system works for the rich, it doesn't work for the poor - that much is obvious to anyone who cares to take even the briefest of looks at it.
Good question! Lots of answers (Score:2)
> And the answer is what?
That's the $100 billion question, isn't it. I don't have the full answer. There are a lot of different things that can be done to improve things. Pretending that the VA model, or the US insurance model, or the UK NHS model is just grand is definitely NOT a solution.
Without writing a 150-page book about things that could improve healthcare, let me just say that anyone who says they have the one magic answer to it all is wrong (or lying). There are a lot of problems, which requ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's why I'm glad I live in a country with a decent public health system. Public health systems don't have private insurance death panels deciding who lives and who dies.
Over the last 20 years, I've had over 10 major operations (including two transplants - the first one failed after 6 years), a few smaller operations, about 8 years
Re: (Score:2)
The measurements are wrong. If not enough money is spent on public schools because only the poor attend them and we don't need to spend money on the poor then your schools are of course shit, if your middle class had to attend them then enough money would be spent on them for a good education to result. If your appointment with the specialist does not save your life then you have wasted your money.and American life expectancy is falling (despite the ease with which the drugs companies spend your insurance
Re: (Score:2)
Your "16-week" wait for a specialist appointment entirely depends on specific circumstances - for example, a cancer initial diagnosis by your GP will get you a cancer specialist appointment within 2 weeks and into full treatment soon after.
Yes, you might wait 16 weeks for a hip replacement, but you aren't going to die from that.
I'd rather wait for a non-life threatening appointment than have to bankrupt myself with private health costs thanks - thats an aspect of the US system that is often smoothed over by
Re: (Score:2)
> - for example, a cancer initial diagnosis by your GP will get you a cancer specialist appointment within 2 weeks and into full treatment soon after.
Except that now you know that according the NHS, they 62% of the time they do NOT get you an appointment with 2 weeks. They are *supposed to*, most of the time they don't.
Kinda like the VA wasn't supposed to destroy records so that nobody found out that the dead guy had asked for an appointment four months ago, but they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's because the NHS is overwhelmed by demand.
That isn't an issue with the NHS, that's an issue with two decades of excessive immigration (and also an issue with horrific inefficiency that the unions prevent anybody from fixing).
Re: (Score:2)
I know of several people in the recent past that have been diagnosed with cancer in the UK. In all cases once the diagnosis was made treatment started promptly. There can be delays with diagnosis but that is because often the symptoms presented are likely to be something else. You don't for example assume because you have a cough that it is lung cancer and rush for a chest xray immediately. Only if the cough persists would you go for a chest xray hence a delay in diagnosis. This will be true whether you liv
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you know saying things doesn't make 'em true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you dispute Merriam Webster's definition of Socialism? You dispute what the Danes themselves call themselves [thelocal.dk]? You get to decide what socialism is, and no one else? Really?
If socialism is such a great economic model - please point to a country with a socialist economy. Go ahead.
I prefer to not die (Score:3)
I was just watching a Youtube video of an attorney I like who does videos on legal issues. As part of a funny courthouse story, but mentioned that he went to see his doctor one afternoon. His GP said he wanted a specialist to check something out, so he referred him to see the specialist in the morning. He went in to see the specialist, who said surgery would be needed, so they scheduled surgery for that afternoon. He mentioned this because it led to something happening in court the next day.
The guideline
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are rich you can pay to be seen immediately in the UK. There are private hospitals.
UK government medicine - you get treated, even if it can take some time
USA private medicine - you spend all your money, go bankrupt and die anyway
When did you die? $10 broke you? (Score:2)
> USA private medicine - you spend all your money, go bankrupt and die anyway
Sorry to hear that you're bankrupt and dead.
The $10 copay hasn't bankrupted me yet. I think I'm still alive.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a better survival rate than the UK for all cancers.
The US has a better survival rate than the UK for all heart diseases.
The US has a better survival rate than the UK for all traumatic injuries.
The US has a better survival rate than the UK for all chronic diseases.
In fact, the post-surgery death rate for the UK is somewhere between 4 and 10 times [theguardian.com] what it is in the US, and the primary reason is that the US provides treatment sooner, when the disease is less severe.
So, in the UK, you might get seen,
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the UK does better with some types of cancer.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.... [nuffieldtrust.org.uk]
It's fairly comparable to the US for the most part, and behind other European countries.
Can't be bothered to debug the rest if you couldn't be bothered to check the first one or provide any citations.
Re: (Score:2)
His GP said he wanted a specialist to check something out, so he referred him to see the specialist in the morning. He went in to see the specialist, who said surgery would be needed, so they scheduled surgery for that afternoon. He mentioned this because it led to something happening in court the next day.
Sounds like a whole lot of idle capacity if you ask me, that's convenient but usually expensive. In a universal healthcare system you generally don't have to worry that a competitor will steal your "business", so they tend to operate with a line long enough that all slots are filled and that it's operating close to maximum economic efficiency. Of course it's dangerous to generalize from one anecdote, it could be that for medical reasons it was that urgent or one late cancellation or that they had enough fr
Optimum line length = appointment length (Score:2)
> Sounds like a whole lot of idle capacity if you ask me, that's convenient but usually expensive
That's an interesting thought. There is actually a whole discipline around that called queuing theory. As it turns out, having a long line doesn't actually decrease costs at all compared to 1-2 days. It would if and only if most cancer cases were diagnosed all once - if there were such a thing as cancer season. It actually INCREASES costs to have longer lines.
In the US, a medium-sized city will have about
Re: (Score:2)
44% of Americans pay no federal income tax. It is pretty easy to arrange.
Re:as if that can't exist in absence of gov't (Score:5, Interesting)
Private anything is always more expensive as you charge the customer whatever the market will bear. National utility prices are generally set at a low cost because the service is without go faster stickers and other crap that marketing adds to a product to make it compete. There is nothing inherently wrong with either nationalized or privatized provision of services, it is down to the management and implementation of the actual service. The big problem with nationalizing services is that the shareholders usually think they have been ripped off, conversely the big problem with selling off public services is that the tax payer thinks that they have been ripped off. Your political masters are much keener on privatized services because they stand to make more money from lobbying than if it were nationalized. there are no other reasons. You parroting what they have told you to think just reflects your slave status. American private medicine is twice as expensive as medicine in other advanced economies no matter what method of payment is being used. Your life expectancy figures are also declining despite this expenditure.
Re:as if that can't exist in absence of gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA has a privatised healthcare system. It ranks 35th out of the 35 OECD (developed) countries, i.e. last, for keeping infants & children under 5 alive. The USA's healthcare system is also the most expensive. So this means that US citizens pay more for their healthcare than anyone else & get the worst.
Perhaps you should try nationalising it. Do you think it could get any worse?
As opposed to terrible customer service (Score:3)
To be fair I'm yank, so I don't know how your ISPs are, but in my neck of the woods they're among the most reviled companies in the country.
Also not sure about your pricing structure. Here in the States we pay $100-$160/mo for broadband if you don't want strict data caps (1 terabyte/mo, which goes fast if you're streaming).
By the way, why _is_ the left in the UK such a cluster fuck? In the States our billionaires spend literally billions
Re: (Score:3)
In UK it depends a little on where you live but in any urban/suburban area you have a wide choice of ISPs and can typically choose from Cable to ADSL to FTTC (Fibre To The Cabinet). In lots of towns and cities you can choose full fibre. It's competitive, hence good value.
In rural area it can be really shitty though, with unreliable slow ADSL being the only option while costing similar to urban dwellers' high speed fibre.
I live in a big town/small city and pay the equivalent of US $30 monthly for FTTC with
Re: (Score:3)
It's very hard to compete with "free" which is basically the proposition of a national broadband. What would happen instead is that all the other services would go bust and the only service remaining would stagnate and become awful. Of course it's not free at all since it's paid through t
Again not sure about the UK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Labour at the moment is they are so hard left that they couldn't possibly countenance anything that involved private or semi-private companies. They're trying to outright nationalise things, conveniently forgetting how thoroughly awful most nationalised services traditionall
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'm not in any of those places (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, why _is_ the left in the UK such a cluster fuck?
Hard to know. I mean partly it's that the Labour party has a very low membership fee and suddenly got swamped by Corbynites who seem to have taken over the party and who put a massive dickhead in (Corbyn). the right is also a total clusterfuck too with Boris "fuck business" Johnson as PM and liar in chief and Rees-Mogg as leader of the house who seems intent on dragging Britain back to the 1850s, and into some ludicrous isolationist state. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno where you're getting that price from. I'm paying $60/month for AT&T fiber (to the modem) w/ no caps/limits.
And which Billionares are you talking about...the Kochs? We'll...I'll take the Kochs and raise you Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros, etc... Hint, there are a lot more on the left then the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you remember the godawful nationalised telephone system that Britain used to suffer under.
Implying it got better? Public. Private. It makes no difference. Internet in the UK is a national disgrace both in the country and in the city centre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK started out in the 1800s with lots of small companies building networks. Eventually they were all combined as the Post Office.
Service didn't magically get better as soon as BT was privatised. It was actually the result of legislation, e.g. the universal service requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the "free" service (i.e. taxpayer funded) is competing with schools, health
Re: (Score:2)
It still takes weeks to get a move installed. The choice of phone was unrelated to privatisation. In fact the monopoly it created necessitated LLU.
Why? (Score:3)
I don't understand why this is needed. Elon Musk's Starlink system will be up and running before they even start the paperwork and will provide global access for all.
Cost (Score:3)
One of the dirty little secrets of capitalism is that it can be more profitable to sell less of a product. If I've got a million customers at $1/mo vs a 100k at $100/mo I'm going to go with the latter
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink's filings imply that they will charge $60/mo per subscriber, based on their expected number of customers, and expected profit.
Exede, their closest competitor in the USA anyway, starts at $80. And it maxes out at 20 Mbps, streaming video is throttled hard, and Viasat being in GEO means there's about a second of latency in the round trip.
Assuming the filings bear any relation to reality, Starlink is going to be a phenomenal value.
Re: (Score:2)
My Internet costs $42/month. 76Mbits down 20Mbits up with a 250Gb limit.
Why would I move to Starlink?
Re: (Score:2)
My Internet costs $42/month. 76Mbits down 20Mbits up with a 250Gb limit.
31.25 gigabytes? That's pretty pathetic.
Why would I move to Starlink?
This isn't about you. Literally the only kind of service I can get where I am is satellite. I can't even get POTS.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say that I get less than 250Gb Download? I never mentioned 31.25Gbytes. I have 0.25Tbytes download limit.
Most months I never go over 30Gbytes. I don't stream anything.
The post I replied to seemed to suggest that Starlink would be the saviour and make Broadband as historic as the Steam Engine.
It won't. If anything 5G is more of a threat. Not that I can get 4G at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say that I get less than 250Gb Download? I never mentioned 31.25Gbytes.
Someone whose nickname is "RotateLeftByte" should probably be aware that Gb = gigabits and GB = gigabytes.
250 Gb limit? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
A few reasons.
The government wants this service to be free. It sees broadband as adding value to the country in the same way that roads to. People can get government services, education and more, and companies can offer new services like streaming that don't work over low speed, high latency connections.
It would be madness to have an American for-profit company be the provider of that service.
Starlink is also unproven and won't be able to provide high speed, low latency connections to everyone. The laws of physics cannot be altered, the round-trip-time cannot be lowed beyond the speed of radio waves or light. Since the service is shared and there is only so much bandwidth available within the allocated bands it won't be able to provide everyone with gigabit+ connections.
Re: (Score:2)
The government wants this service to be free.
The government wants no such thing. The people promising this want to get elected, nothing more, nothing less. Their opposition are also promising unicorns, and both sides know there won't be a cent to pay for any of the promises when the UK leaves the EU and they stop staring into the economic abyss they've been standing on the side of ready to jump.
There are no good policies being proposed in these elections. No realistic budgets. No plans for what will happen on the 31st January or beyond. You're talking
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand why this is needed.
Because they are coming up to an election. Don't be ignorant enough to believe this will actually be implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
Will starlink be free to use? no, of course it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple facets to this.
- poor provision of broadband in rural locations, where people tend not to vote for the Labour party, so this might entice a few votes their way.
- bribing the electorate, giving away free stuff. Of course, they don't mention that the costs will rise in the form of general taxation, that service levels will plummet, that the unions will leech away any potential benefits or indeed that people's pension funds will collapse due to the forced switch from shares in profitable com
Re: (Score:2)
What anti-Musk trolling? Starlink will be up and running by the mid-2020s and will offer low latency high bandwidth connections. Why would you even bother with wired broadband at this point? A lot of cost and maintenance for no benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideology, that's why. The same thing that made the Labour nationalise and destroy our perfectly-good private railways.
(Also, I can see why an authoritarian hard-left party would want control over communications.)
Funny, in 1948, the private railways were on their knees and suffering financially after the war, and would have all failed if they hadn't been nationalised.
So, no. They were not, at the time of nationalisation, "perfectly good"
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, the issue with the nationalisation of the railways in 48 is one of those moments where you just shake your head and tut - the British government ran the railways into the ground during the war, with little to no recompense to the private owners, and after the war the government said "thank you, we will take that" again for little recompense due to the condition of the network and rolling stock!
Add to that, the re-nationalisation of Railtrack....
Paid for by tech consumers (Score:4, Insightful)
The Tech Companies will raise their prices to cover the increased taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
What prices? Google is free.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything eventually makes it to the consumer.
Google charges companies for their advertising platform.
If Google is taxed more, they will increase their advertising service cost and pass that on to companies using it.
Companies will then increase the cost of their consumer products and services so they can pay the higher advertising costs.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese already stole my information when they hacked the US government. So I have nothing left to hide except for the combination of my luggage.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tech Companies will raise their prices to cover the increased taxes.
The Labor Party has a plan for that . . . they're going to nationalize The Tech Companies, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tech Companies will raise their prices to cover the increased taxes.
Raise prices, lower wages or reduce return on investment, those are the three options companies have when taxed... and unless there's simply no way to do one of the first two, they never do the third. This isn't specific to tech companies, it's all companies. Well, there's a fourth option: lobby for reductions or loopholes, i.e. regulatory capture.
This story perfectly illustrates something I harp on pretty regularly: Corporate taxes are not just wrong-headed, they're evil. Taxes are never ultimately p
Re: (Score:2)
Raise prices, lower wages or reduce return on investment, those are the three options companies have when taxed... and unless there's simply no way to do one of the first two, they never do the third. This isn't specific to tech companies, it's all companies. Well, there's a fourth option: lobby for reductions or loopholes, i.e. regulatory capture.
This story perfectly illustrates something I harp on pretty regularly: Corporate taxes are not just wrong-headed, they're evil. Taxes are never ultimately paid by businesses, they're always reallocated to individuals some way or other. This means that business taxes are always actually borne by individual taxpayers, but it's the corporations who get to decide how to allocate them.
At least in the United States corporate taxes are levied on PROFITS after expenses. If a corporation was being taxed in a way that meant choosing between paying employees or raising prices to cover tax burden that would be one thing and in that case I would tend to agree with many of your conclusions. Yet this isn't actually what's happening.
If a corporation doesn't want to be taxed they could direct their profits to expansion, new equipment, charity or big fat bonuses for all of their employees. A numbe
Not likely (Score:3)
If raising taxes always raised prices we never would have made it out of the dark ages. Economies grow, and when they do we can and should take some of that growth to spend on universally valuable projects. That includes roads, schools, healthcare and yes, Intern
Re: (Score:2)
How much does Facebook charge users for it's service? Last time I checked it was free.
Those bastards are tax dodgers. They should be paying far more tax in the UK. Companies that can't offshore their profits are at a competitive disadvantage.
If they increase prices then fair enough. They were operating below cost and gaining an unfair competitive advantage.
It is election time (Score:5, Insightful)
The parties are making wild promises and trying to bribe us with our own money.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse. They are doing so knowing full well the entire economy is about to be flushed down the metaphorical toilet. All signs point to an upcoming recession sponsored by the national stupidity that is Brexit. They are bribing you with your own money knowing fully well neither you nor they will actually have any of it.
Damn communists! (Score:2)
Spelling: Labour party (Score:3)
Infrastructure monopolies are fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the US, where any state ownership of anything is Soviet-era communism to some people, infrastructure monopolies can work. We don't have 17 sets of power lines going to each street, or cable coax, or old-school copper phone lines. Telecom is a bad example in the US given he history but electric, water and gas work well even when people aren't able to choose their providers.
Splitting the network responsibility between a commonly-owned company for physical plant maintenance and service providers for customer-facing stuff is a good compromise. As long as service providers can make a profit, and the maintainer company can make enough in usage fees and taxes to keep everything running well, it works. Having it state-owned means that we don't see what we see in the US with phone companies abandoning their requirements to maintain universal service. Phone companies don't want to spend the money to lay and maintain fiber to remote rural areas because they can't make enough money off a small number of customers doing so. Recently, RBOCs like Frontier Communications and whatever's left of the regional Bell companies after their re-mergers have come under a lot of scrutiny for providing below-par service. This is what happens when you have a for-profit company running things -- they'll just cut and cut until they're called out on not living up to the deal they made to be a monopoly provider in an area.
An IT example would be one of the big outsourcing companies coming in. After firing the in-house IT department, their job is to do the absolute minimum work necessary at the cheapest cost to avoid breaking the contract they have with their company. At the same time, everything that isn't in the contract is a change order and is done on a massively inflated time and materials basis. Everything grinds to a halt for a few years until a new CIO comes in and starts the insource cycle. This has been going on for at least 25 years and I wonder when people will realize it's a bad idea. Infrastructure takes a lot longer to go through this cycle.
Pie In the Sky (Score:2)
Like so many promises made by Politicians hoping to get elected.
Their promises need to be funded. Sadly the Labor party seem to think that there is an evergreen money tree at the bottom of their leader's Allotment.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the Labor party seem to think that there is an evergreen money tree at the bottom of their leader's Allotment.
They do indeed. Unfortunately the Tories seem to be intent on out-spending Labour. Fuck business, right?
Panopticon Dreams (Score:2)
Britain is one of the most surveilled places on the planet (the US and China are probably both ahead today, though.) Of course they want people on a nationalized ISP, imagine the data collection possibilities.
I'm still generally for it as there are ways to subvert such tracking, and the value to society of universal internet access is significant, but it's surprising when governments don't do such things.
Quite a unique election this one (Score:2)
Most parties go into elections promising the world, usually on the back of a big spending spree. This is the first one I can remember where parties promise this spending spree while at the same time having a policy of driving the country into recession.
They will tax tech companies? What companies? They are pulling out of the UK in droves.
Re: (Score:2)
They will tax tech companies? What companies? They are pulling out of the UK in droves.
Oh that explains the mass of tower block building going on around King's Cross. They're building towerblocks then will leave them as an empty monument to how they won't work there.
It's bullshit (Score:2)
They're going to raise taxes on more than just tech companies.
Also, currently there is 95% broadband penetration in the UK with a satisfaction rating of roughly 80%.
So who're they ACTUALLY doing this for?
Also, in the end, nationalizing internet connectivity?
What happens if you have "the wrong opinions"?
Does your internet get cut off?
Re: (Score:2)
What are they doing this for? Many nations have dreamed of having a federalized communications network carrying all private and public traffic. "Billing the tech companies" to fund the technology _and the bureaucracy to manage it_ is somewhat of a twist. The UK have a history of handling utilities as a national service, such as the NHS and the BBC, both funded by taxes. (The BBC is funded by the "telivision license", which is in every legal sense a tax.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Labor.
They think the promise of "Free Shit" will draw people to their crumbling party.
And again, if you nationalize people's internet connection, it becomes yet another avenue of control and a means of violating privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Corbyn it simply wasn't talked about. Both our major parties are rife with it and they aren't really out of sync with the British people who are depressingly xenophobic and prejudiced in many, many ways.
Corbyns problem is a war in his own party over how far to the left it swings has distracted them from suppressing those dirty secrets, like past leaders. That and being a terrible leader in general who always sits on his hands instead of dealing with these problems.
Nothing about Tory anti-Semitism either (Score:3)
Wikipedia has an entire article about it, wow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Wiki also has an article about Tory Anti-semitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Corbyn is anti-semite. He just hates Israel and supports terror groups that attack it.
His party on the other hand want to make the point that only one tenth of one percent of their members have been accused of anti-semitism. Which sounds about right to me, they have over a quarter of a million members, most of whom are British and wouldn't stand for that nonsense.
Unfortunately that also means that around 5% of Labour councillors, MPs and candidates have been accused of anti-semitism, which is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it helps, so is the policy.
Re: (Score:2)