Well collectively the spending plans are certainly crazy.

However, I regard broadband coverage and speeds as vital first world infrastructure.....So I won't criticise that.

Sorry I'm not sure how this then pays for fibre to be installed to every household in the UK.

If you mean the money paid by corporations gets funnelled into a fund that then pays for the network to be upgraded to every home, then I suppose that could work. Although I'd be interested to know the percentage of people that work from home more than 3 days a week, which would probably be the qualifier to get free or subsidised internet and or devices. Most medium to large corporates supply free of subsidised mobile hardware and data to their employees anyway so that is nothing new. You'd also have a hard time convincing SMEs to sign up to this as it would hammer their growth potential.

Not every business operates in a way that supports WFH en masse. The zenith of this approach has already been and gone – there are extensive studies around frequent WFH actually being a negative rather than a positive, for fairly obvious reasons.

The irony here is that it's the same socialist approach, just implemented in a less workable way.

Spending 80bn on free fibre broadband to everyone is mental. Spending 15bn ensuring everyone has the potential to access fibre is more sensible. If you wanted to go further on reducing price for people there then make it means tested, although that comes with an admin nightmare.

And to those saying 'Just spend it all on 5G' – the phone companies already do this, just not to low priority areas. Or not for a long time after it's been turned on in cities. Add additional 5G infrastructure on top of that 15bn fibre everywhere plan. You need a mix of both as it's going to be a while until as a society we are able to become fully reliant on currently unstable, and low bandwidth (when compared with wired connections) wireless data transfer.

Additional funding to close the gap on Fibre + 5G installation would be expensive, but more practical than Labours free internet plan and nowhere near 80bn. Ideologically it's sound, i.e. internet access is increasingly becoming close to an essential human right, but financially it just doesn't make sense.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Nov 2019 4.41pm)

Not so sure. Labour has to get out younger voters if it is to stand any chance. This is the kind of bribe, and let's be honest about what it is, that might grab their attention given how much of their lives are spent online these days. I reckon there might be a something similar touted about mobile phone data at some stage soon. Not sure how might word that one but shiny tech presents have an impact.

Credit where it is due, Labour might have a hook here.

If you live out in the country, probably have mains gas and sewerage would rate marginally higher than fibre....[/quote

People in the country are still waiting for mains gas and sewerage. Since '45 the Tories have been in control for 60% of the time. What have they been doing?

Labour won a bi-election in Westminster this week and took 47% of the vote.

An old analogy used in the past to describe bank 'bail-outs' along with forced 'austerity'.

But i'm glad it made you smile

Labour won a bi-election in Westminster this week and took 47% of the vote.

I agree that the fact that one wage used to support a family and now you need two is not a question that is never asked by the media who are meant to (and falsify that place) hold power to account.

It is a very good point that if we had a free media you would expect to be asked.

My post was more limited than that. My post was was in response to someone who was questioning Labour's idea of free broadband as simply a means to power. That's fair enough.

But the person they support IS a known liar who is in truck with Trump and the media to royally screw ordinary people over for big fat profits.

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (16 Nov 2019 12.05am)

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (16 Nov 2019 12.06am)

I agree that the fact that one wage used to support a family and now you need two is not a question that is never asked by the media who are meant to (and falsify that place) hold power to account.

It is a very good point that if we had a free media you would expect to be asked.

My post was more limited than that. My post was was in response to someone who was questioning Labour's idea of free broadband as simply a means to power. That's fair enough.

But the person they support IS a known liar who is in truck with Trump and the media to royally screw ordinary people over for big fat profits.

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (16 Nov 2019 12.05am)

Edited by Bill E Pilgrim (16 Nov 2019 12.06am)