Robin-H

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn by chair of Leicester East Labour Party, John Thomas, who has just resigned the Labour Party. In his resignation letter he called Corbyn a 'clown', and heavily influenced by the 'Trotskyite Len McCluskey' who has made Labour a laughing stock with his 'hoki coki' leadership.

It is still true that since the cut in corporate tax rates in the UK the revenue has increased. Obviously there are other factors that make a country attractive to investment, and the balance may be different in Germany so that such an incentive isn't necessary.

It is undeniably true that the cuts to corporation tax that the Tories have enacted so far have increased revenue from the tax. It is also true that there is a limit to how low the taxes can go for revenue to keep on increasing (e.g if the tax was 0%, the revenue would be 0%). It may be that it's no longer clear if a cut below 19% would increase revenue after all when we are already have the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, so the incentive is already there..

I'll let El Cid answer, but as far as I was concerned, he wasn't suggesting they were transgressing any party rules no.

El Cid isn't saying there should be rules. They're asking whether things like that matter. Does it matter if candidates practice what they preach.

Access to water is a human right too. Why aren’t they making water free for everyone? I’m pretty sure access to food is a bigger human rights issue than access to broadband as well. Are they going to make food free for all? Why not?

What percentage of businesses don't already have broadband? If it's aimed at business, why not just subsidise businesses cost of broadband through tax breaks etc...

Anyone can look at the figures. Labour said the tax would generate £230m annually. How are the billions extra going to be funded? We know how much Openreach costs to run now - it's in the billions. The salary bill alone is £800milion. So this government run broadband will also be immune to cyber attacks! Wow!

I'll let everyone else who may be reading the thread decide who is the one dodging questions, trying to change the subject, or just using good old personal attacks instead. I'm not interested in getting drawn into useless name calling.

Sorry I may have missed that. So where is Labour getting the money from? The existing budgets?

Ask me in the Conservative Party thread and I am more than happy to type out the exact same answer that I gave here. Would that satisfy you? I'm not going to randomly bring up something that nobody was talking about, but if personally asked, I am more than happy to say 'I'm sure it was, yes' again.... Now, is there is a reason why you're desperately trying to avoid answering my question? It sounds like you don't know the answer.

I'm sure it was yes. Now, instead of trying to derail the conservation by asking me about Tory spending in the Labour Party thread, perhaps you could answer the question?

The money came from the existing programme and budgets, meaning that money was cut elsewhere to pay for it. It wasn't magicked out of nowhere. What is the Labour Party going to cut to pay for it? Those are significant annual running costs running into many billions. Absolutely. It's what Openreach is doing now.

That doesn't answer the question, unless you're suggesting that Labour are just going to magic the money up from somewhere.. Where is the money coming from?

That will be nowhere near enough to pay for it. Labour claim that they would get £230m annually from increasing the tax on the like of Google and Amazon. Openreach employs 32,000 people, (and Labour have guaranteed no job losses). It has an annual wage bill of £800m. Other operating costs take it to £2billion annually. Openreach also has an annual maintenance bill of between £1billion and £2billion. The rollout of fibre across the country is costing Openreach £35billion.... £230m a year isn't going to cut it!

Because it was wonderful when BT was in public ownership wasn't it!!! Have Labour explained how they are paying for this?

No they didn't. A national health service was in the 1945 Tory and Liberal manifestos, as well as Labour. It wasn't some scheme invented by the Labour Party.

Heaven help people who's pensions are invested in Sky, Virgin, Talk Talk etc etc...

It's not that difficult - you post it on here often enough! And again, you're not making proper comparisons. For the sake of argument, let's say the Chinese Government bought Murdoch's News Corp (and the government didn't call in the investment on grounds that such influence by a foreign power on our media would weaken our security). There would be absolutely nothing to stop you from consuming other media, or someone from setting up a new newspaper. They still wouldn't control the BBC, or the Guardian, or many other significant ways that people get their media.

That's not comparable at all. Nobody is forcing you to consume any of that media if you don't want to. If the government nationalise the internet then it would be the only way to receive it. They can then control what you see.

It's absolute madness - although I'm sure they'll scoop up some votes from some people naive enough to think it's a good idea. So, they want to nationalise Openreach. They would also ' guarantee jobs' for everyone currently working in broadband. Openreach currently employs 32,000 staff and has a wage bill of about £800,000,000 a year. Openreach's operating costs are more than £2billion a year. Annual maintenance costs are between £1billion and £2billion a year. Openreach is responsible for the rollout of full fibre - which is costing £35billion. So Labour are going to pay for all that how exactly, when they would be getting no income because they want to give it away for free...

We know exactly what would have happened because it did happen. Does no one remember the massive flooding down in Surrey a few years ago?

May help a sore throat. I don't suppose it would help the OPs symptoms (cough, temperature, feeling weak, aching)

Surely they would need more than just an eye witness account - like cctv footage etc.

Then I don’t think you understand how sustainable commercial forestry works, it’s enviro impact, and the difference in Co2 sequestration rates between a sustainable commercial forest and any other. There is no reason why you would understand it if it isn’t something you’ve looked into before and so this isn’t meant as a dig at you, but I suggest you look into at as I think you’ll find assumptions you may have are incorrect. Presumably you think if nobody bought live Christmas Trees then the amount of Co2 we produce as a country would reduce, or do you have another reason why you dislike them?