back to article Tax the tech giants and ISPs until the bits squeak – Corbyn

The Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition wants to tax ISPs and “technology giants” to fund the BBC and independent journalism. With Labour 10/11 to have the most seats at Britain's next General Election, his targets are obliged to take it seriously. Jeremy Corbyn used TV luvvie land's annual festival to float several proposals …

  1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Boo Hoo

    Boo Hoo! The press keep pointing out how all my friends are terrorists, terrorist sympathisers and antisemites. Vote for me and i'll punish them by giving more to the biased and unfit for this century BBC.

    Lord Buckethead would make a better Prime Minister...Heck...Even Theresa May is a better Prime Minister!

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Boo Hoo

      Even Theresa May is a better Prime Minister!

      Are you sure? While I still remember her admirable speech to the Tory Party when she was chairman, she has been totally inept since she became PM, particularly in failing to set the government's agenda.

      In any case when it comes to the current crop of muppets, comparisons are meaningless. Thought experiment with Bojo, Corbyn, Rees-Mogg™ 1775, Gove, et al. at the helm would things be any less shit?

      Personally, and I'm not a Tory, I'm expecting Osborne to make a comeback, and I've been quite impressed by Ruth Davison, though I suspect her sexual preference could be a problem when people stop blaming foreigners for everything!

    2. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Boo Hoo

      "Boo Hoo! The press keep pointing out how all my friends are terrorists, terrorist sympathisers and antisemites."

      Slight issue with what you've raised here, it's been proven numerous times that those photographs etc weren't of what the press said they were, and the anti-semitic he shared a platform with was a Jewish holocaust survivor that compared the treatment of Palestine by Israel to that of Nazi against the Jews.

      Carry on with your bullshit, but at least be factually correct with your bullshit.

      1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Wolfetone

        Are we expected to ignore all the antisemitism from just the last 2 years because 1 of the events isn't exactly as described in the media? The problem is no one Jewish could trust Comrade Corbyn anymore and every week we get more antisemitism tied to him.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          Re: Wolfetone

          "Are we expected to ignore all the antisemitism from just the last 2 years because 1 of the events isn't exactly as described in the media? The problem is no one Jewish could trust Comrade Corbyn anymore and every week we get more antisemitism tied to him."

          Please, for the love of God, point out these cases of anti semitism. While you're at it, will you also present the anti-Irish attitudes every Prime Minister and MP has had, as well as their anti-black propaganda bullshit, and their islamaphobia.

          Thanks.

          1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Wolfetone

            Please, for the love of God, point out these cases of anti semitism

            There's an article for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

            ...That's the size of the article after it was excessively trimmed for being too full of recent events...Recent since Corbyn seized power...

            You're living in denial Wolfetone

            1. Gordon861

              Re: Wolfetone

              I thought the general agreement here was that Wikipedia is only marginally more accurate than the Sun or Daily Mail?

            2. wolfetone Silver badge

              Re: Wolfetone

              If you seriously have to come back at me with a Wikipedia article to validate your point then you're in denial, I'm asking for the evidence before taking a side. I'm not a Corbyn fan, I'm a fan of kids not being blown up in the name of some prick's idea that he has a God given right to land he has no right to - and then blame everyone for being anti-semitic because they call him out on it.

              Furthermore, there are plenty of Jewish Labour groups who are backing Corbyn over this. But I suppose Jewish people can be either in denial or anti-semitic too.

              Your move.

              1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Wolfetone

                If you're asking me for every instance of antisemitism and too lazy to look through a curated list i provided (with sources) then you're in denial and Jeremy Corbyn standing in front of you telling you he's an antisemite won't convince you.

        2. Roj Blake Silver badge

          Re: Are we expected to ignore all the antisemitism from just the last 2 years

          Surveys suggest that there is less anti-semitism in the Labour party than in the Conservative Party and in society as whole.

          So yes, we are expected to ignore it, unless other similar problems in other parties are given equivalent prominence.

          1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Roj blake

            "Surveys suggest that there is less anti-semitism in the Labour party than in the Conservative Party and in society as whole"

            Maybe from the voters, but not from the actual party. Source: https://antisemitism.uk/new-caa-research-shows-antisemitism-amongst-officials-in-labour-is-eight-times-worse-than-any-other-party/

            If you can't be arsed/don't have time to read it just read the link title...

            1. wolfetone Silver badge

              Re: Roj blake

              Ah, here we go.

              The "International Definition of Antisemitism" makes speaking out against the state of Israel an anti-semitic act. Labour won't sign up to it because of that, and quite frankly no one should sign up to it because of that.

              The research is based on this rule and the use of the "Livingstone formula". That would mean right now, me saying this sentence: "The state of Israel's treatment of Palestine is abhorrent and cruel" would make me anti-semitic. That goes against the general held belief - a belief I was taught at school - that to victimise someone of the Jewish faith, to persecute them etc, is anti-semitic. Furthermore, a statement such as this by Jenny Tonge: "The pro-Israeli Lobby has got its grips on the Western World, its financial grips. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party" comes under the Livingstone Formula as an identification of anti-semitism. Again, referring back to the IDA, to accuse a state of something, anything, is to be anti-semitic.

              Take what you've read above and think now to Israel bombing Iranian targets in Syria. They shouldn't have, and the evidence Israel used to defend themselves was sketchy at best. To call them wrong or to say they shouldn't have done it, under the IDA, makes that an anti-semitic statement.

              Ireland recently are bringing in a 'Boycott Israel' law, which boycotts goods and services produced by Israel on disputed land Israel occupy - which has been noticed by the UN. Ireland were called anti-semitic for this. The move itself, under the IDA, makes it an anti-semitic move.

              You can see how utterly crazy that definition is, and furthermore using a relatively sketchy "formula" to find these types of statements as said above to label anyone anti-semitic is an absolute joke. It's abhorrent quite frankly and a massive abuse of a term that hijacks true real hate crimes against the Jewish religion.

              1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Wolfetone

                "The "International Definition of Antisemitism" makes speaking out against the state of Israel an anti-semitic act"

                Erm...No it doesn't. Try reading it. Here's the exact wording since you'll argue i'm lying if i don't provide it for you: "10: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

                Criticism is fine. Calling them Nazis or comparing them to Nazis - you know, the group that tried to exterminate them, is surprisingly very offensive to them. I know! Shocker!

                1. Roland6 Silver badge

                  Re: Wolfetone

                  >Calling them Nazis or comparing them to Nazis - ... , is surprisingly very offensive to them.

                  Who exactly is them?

                  I have known German Jews (many now dead but who decided to live in the UK) - yes those that had first hand experience of the Nazis - who quite happily compared the Zionists behind the modern state of Israel to the Nazis...

                  1. DavCrav Silver badge

                    Re: Wolfetone

                    ">Calling them Nazis or comparing them to Nazis - ... , is surprisingly very offensive to them.

                    Who exactly is them?

                    I have known German Jews (many now dead but who decided to live in the UK) - yes those that had first hand experience of the Nazis - who quite happily compared the Zionists behind the modern state of Israel to the Nazis..."

                    Good for you. I suspect I can find a lot more Jews who are a bit unhappy at it. I am sure I can find black people who don't mind a different word beginning with N, but that doesn't mean it's open season.

              2. This post has been deleted by its author

                1. Walter Bishop Silver badge
                  Big Brother

                  Re: Roj blake

                  >> The "International Definition of Antisemitism" makes speaking out against the state of Israel an anti-semitic act.

                  > No, no it does not.

                  Do you think all these antisemitic accusations are a pretext to beat-up Corbyn, just in case he actually gets into power. For instance, there's a video online of a group of people at a Corbyn press conference, where one gets up to ask a question on 'antisemitism' and the rest signal each other and stage a walk-out. Press conference sucessfully hijacked. Why would ostensablly 'labour' supporters be so desperate to sabatage their own leader?

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Roj blake

                  I'm going to wade in with all this shite being written.

                  One part of the IDA being objected is

                  "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

                  So I can be Antisemitic for not criticising other nations for their shitty acts or not criticising them as much as Israel.

                  I await someone to defend that definition as fair and proper.

                  I read that as "We can be shitty as long as other nations are being shitty" and we'll get you all to pass laws stopping the press from calling us out for being shitty. The Nazi one isn't just about Nazi's, it's the "A" word the Israeli government don't like and that's "Apartheid".

                  Down vote away but I'm right.

                  Edit: If you are going to attack Corbyn then do it on his policies and goals and how they won't work, this is just cheap shite by a press weaned on capitalism.

                  1. DavCrav Silver badge

                    Re: Roj blake

                    "One part of the IDA being objected is

                    "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

                    So I can be Antisemitic for not criticising other nations for their shitty acts or not criticising them as much as Israel."

                    If someone constantly criticizes Israel for its human rights violations, and ignore any other countries', then, you know, there is probably a reason for that.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Roj blake

                      @DavCrav

                      You miss the point are other countries that act shitty aren't trying to get laws passed/rules by politicians that stop you from talking about them for being shitty? No.

                      I'll be the first to criticise any country for human rights, case in point America and it's treatment of prisoners and the current hidden hunger strike. I think the issue here is that America isn't using perceived racism to allow it to do whatever it wants. That's what really rankles me.

                      Name one news corp or political organisation such as Labour that has only ever criticised Israel or even one state?

                      The best part is addition of "Democratic Nation" because democratic nations never act shitty at all do they?

                      1. DavCrav Silver badge

                        Re: Roj blake

                        "You miss the point are other countries that act shitty aren't trying to get laws passed/rules by politicians that stop you from talking about them for being shitty? No."

                        This isn't a law. This is 'what is a reasonable definition of someone being a Jew-hater?' And one example might well be 'talks a lot about how the country full of Jews is really terrible all of the time'.

                        When you have people who talk about Israel being a human rights violator, and talk often about it (for example, the Rt Hon. J. Corbyn), then that's fine. But when they give scant attention to, just off the top of my head, the human rights violations in the Philippines, Venezuela, Mexico, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Australia, the United States, Poland, Hungary and Turkey (I only chose, to varying extents, democracies, to fit in with the definition, as otherwise it's just too easy to list countries), it all seems a bit dodgy.

                        You never see people specifically campaign against one other country like you see against Israel. You have general human rights campaigners, like Amnesty International, who criticize Israel. They also criticize many other regimes. They are rarely called anti-Semitic because the charge wouldn't stick.

                        But many people focus on Israel. They criticize them, and often only them, repeatedly. Sometimes lip service is paid to other countries' problems, but the overwhelming output of their campaigning and complaining is against one country. Given Duterte's war on People Who Cross Him, where is the daily outrage? Given China's occupation of several areas, including a recent report suggesting an internment camp with one million people in it. why no BDS campaign against China?

                        One answer is that Israel's crimes are uniquely horrible, that they are so absolutely evil that they deserve especial opprobrium. Another is that these people just hate the Jews.

                  2. SuccessCase

                    Re: Roj blake

                    “this is just cheap shite by a press weaned on capitalism.”

                    We are all weaned on Capitalism and benefit from it hugely.

                    1. You can only have as much Socialism as your Capitalism can afford.

                    2. Capitalism isn’t, despite how some on the left speak about it, a political system or philosophy. It is a default state. For all the leftist definitions trying to make it sound like a big bad boondoggle Captialism is nothing more and nothing less than the freedom for buyers and sellers to agree a price at a market, where what is being sold can also involve financial instruments. It is what you get when you are free to do business with others. It is part and parcel of what you get when you are free full stop. Yes some activities need to be regulated, but if you want to overthrow Capitalism you want to overthrow a fundamental human freedom we all enjoy.

                    I don’t particularly follow Opra Winfrey, but there is something she once said that has always stuck in my mind. She said the biggest lesson she wishes she had learned at a younger age is; when someone tells you who they are, believe them!

                    What’s this got to do with Corbyn? Well McDonnell his right hand man has frequently called for the overthrow of capitalism. Not regulation. Overthrow. He has even said as much in a BBC interview. Properly understood, that is a call to take away our basic freedoms and replace them with centralised control. The only way to do it is to take one big step into totalitarianism. Seamus Milne is a published apologist for Stalinism and Jeremy Corbyn has cosied up with Sin Fein IMO learning how to run a political wing of a militant movement and he assiduously applies their play book (always diverting to generalities when asked about specific atrocities by those he supports “I condemn all violence” but never condemning the acts of the militias he supports while always condemning the acts of those he doesn’t).

                    These people are telling us who they are and too many of us are living too cosily to believe them. Many simply aren’t taking on board what they are quite openly telling us. Anyone who votes for these people is a fool. The Labour Party of Nye Bevan is no more.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Roj blake

                      Very good points, the problem we have though is that there is no appetite to regulate and have a proper system that is fair and that's where we get the vacuum the corbyns of the world can reside and grow. We have gone from a relatively fair system (you could get an education, good job, work hard, buy a house if you wanted) to an extremely corrupt one. (you now need two jobs just to pay your rent and if you complain all you get is "get a better job" like they actually exist for most people, it's a race to the bottom). It's a sad state of affairs.

                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                        Re: Roj blake

                        @AC

                        "the problem we have though is that there is no appetite to regulate and have a proper system that is fair and that's where we get the vacuum the corbyns of the world can reside and grow. "

                        Unfortunately there will never be a fair system as there is no such definition of fair and views like Corbyn's require a denial of the real world and to think of things in a vacuum.

                        "We have gone from a relatively fair system (you could get an education, good job, work hard, buy a house if you wanted)"

                        Rose tinted glasses of a utopia that never existed. Class used to be an issue. Blackouts, interest rates in the double figures easy and a desire for the state and unions to look after the people because things were so bad. The result being things getting worse as blackouts and strikes. People leaving school before 16 because earning some money was more important.

                        Now we have education through to university level (uni being the point where you choose to part with money), a wealth of knowledge virtually free from all over the world via the internet. We have full employment and mostly service jobs instead of back breaking manufacturing. Modern issues are more about not hurting feelings and virtue signalling.

                        "to an extremely corrupt one"

                        Corbyn and like minds are all for socialism. A corrupt system which has damaged and destroyed every economy it has touched. A situation far worse than the one we are in.

                        "you now need two jobs just to pay your rent and if you complain all you get is "get a better job" like they actually exist for most people, it's a race to the bottom"

                        If you earn the average wage in this country you are the 1% globally! Try telling that to the latte drinking socialist who cant afford their rent as they type on their IPhone and bitch about their student debt for gender studies and they need their safe space. When people can pretend the reality they live in isnt real they are not the going to get a good job no matter what because they are not smart.

                        "It's a sad state of affairs."

                        It really isnt. And this is the problem. Yes things can be better, they can be a lot better! But they can be so so so so so much worse that people who dont realise that have been failed by the education system. We have full employment! We bounced out of the recession! We are one of the richest countries in the world and a good portion of that world just wishes it could be here. We have education, healthcare, clean water, affordable food, free time for entertainment! We have access to vast amounts of information and freely available education for anyone. Outside of extreme addition or mental health we have no actual absolute poverty!

                        When some deluded muppet tells you how bad things are compared to the good old days they have lost the lessons of history and have no idea what they are talking about. When someone suggests socialism as a solution you know they have no clue. In both cases it might be best to direct them to the freely available information they can look up on their phone in their favourite coffee shop to get an education.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Roj blake

                " The "International Definition of Antisemitism" makes speaking out against the state of Israel an anti-semitic act. "

                I am sure a few people will have a thought on this and I accept that my thoughts may be wrong, but the whole speaking out against the state of Israel being anti sematic and therefore a good way if not entirely in breach of racism laws.

                It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created post WW2 when the displaced Jews from Germany and Europe as a whole Did not want to go back to Germany as they felt that they would not be safe long term. The Allied countries could not afford to home and support them, so an alternative solution was devised. In breach of an agreement that Colonel T E Lawrence made with Sharif Hussein that there would be no permanent presence in Arab lands, a claim was made that the land of Israel was the home of the Jewish people since Moses lead the Jews out of Egypt to Israel.

                Surely there must be something that gives the Jews claim to the lands other than a book in the bible considering that there is no evidence of Jews as slaves in Egypt at the time? Surely even thinking that the Jews have no claim on the land of Israel in itself is anti sematic and therefore illegal?

              4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: Roj blake

                The "International Definition of Antisemitism" makes speaking out against the state of Israel an anti-semitic act.

                I can't believe you got 20 downvotes for that. It's like saying any statement made against, eg the UK is anti-Christian, which is patently ludicrous.

          2. ManMountain1

            Re: Are we expected to ignore all the antisemitism from just the last 2 years

            This place is becoming worse than Twitter for spouting this nonsense.

            https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-antisemitism-political-parties

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Wolfetone

          "The problem is no one Jewish could trust Comrade Corbyn anymore and every week we get more antisemitism tied to him."

          You're right. Either he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is and it's backfiring on him, or it's a very well orchestrated smear campaign. I don't think I want him as a PM, but I'm not sure that he's that stupid either.

          The accusations are almost all very tenuous so unless or until something definitive is reported, I think I'm leaning more towards it being a smear campaign than not for now.

    3. Ochib

      Re: Boo Hoo

      During her time as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher openly called a terrorist a "true friend", invited a terrorist into her home for tea, and personally lobbied against a terrorist's prosecution for war crimes.

      Thatcher's support for Chile's former torturer-in-chief General Pinochet is no secret; it was something she was proud of. Despite her assertion that “The United States and Britain have together been the greatest alliance in defence of liberty and justice,” Thatcher refused to back down in her support of a man who overthrew a democratically elected government. This was a man who initiated the notorious Caravan of Death, the army unit that travelled the country by helicopter, murdering and torturing the General's opponents.

      1. tiggity Silver badge

        Re: Boo Hoo

        She also thought Mandela a terrorist (she was very pro apartheid / "white SA")

        1. Andytug

          Re: Boo Hoo

          The only difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is which side you're on at the time (usually the one that's going to make you the most money).

        2. MarkW99

          Re: Boo Hoo

          Mandela thought Mandela was a terrorist. That's why he was in prison after all. Mandela made no excuses for his terrorism. He thought his cause was just. YMMV.

          1. bpfh

            Re: Boo Hoo

            So did the inhabitants of our colonies in 1789 :p

        3. fuserly

          Re: Boo Hoo

          @ tiggity - mandela still has a well documented history of sanctioning terrorist acts, despite all the revisionist tinkering.

      2. Rainer

        Re: Boo Hoo

        Pinochet came into power through a coup in which the CIA had a substantial role.

        The US never cared who its allies were, as long as they went along the party line and lined the pockets of US corporations.

        Revolving doors between CIA, private corporations, contractors meant that they were often indistinguishable anyway.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Boo Hoo

          Wow!

          looking at the comments and evenly spread down/up votes I see that the people in the UK are just as divided as the the citizens of the US.

          It's almost as if this was done on purpose,

          (divide and conquer and all that)

          1. wolfetone Silver badge

            Re: Boo Hoo

            Having not been available yesterday to read the definition referenced above, I found this definition which seems to be copied by other sources. So I would say this is as near to the real definition as can be got from the internet -https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

            “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

            However, and this is where the furore over Labour not adopting this definition outright comes from, is that this very definition has been used to prevent critique of Israel and it's treatment of Palestine and Palestinians. This has happened several times and has been upheld as well.

            The very fact a country can hide it's actions under this definition is abhorrent and shouldn't be allowed. To be quite honest, the fact the definition applies to a country is absurd anyway.

          2. Alistair Silver badge
            Windows

            Re: Boo Hoo

            @AC It's almost as if this was done on purpose,

            Congratulations, you're a good bit of the way there. A bit more reading and observing and you'll be on to the game......

    4. pɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
      Flame

      Re: Boo Hoo

      the piss infused turd in my cats litter tray would make a better PM than comrade Corbyn....

    5. technoise

      Re: Boo Hoo

      For the many not the few.

      Shouldn't this mean that he is against regressive taxes?

      Like the BBC licence fee?

      And increasing the cost of ISP subscriptions so that even people who never use the BBC, and don't want to fund it, still have to? Meaning that even the option of not paying a licence fee is no longer possible for anyone?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Put the money into Freedom of Information

    Journalists use this constantly and it's got a huge overhead to answering some quite silly questions on local authorities, health trusts etc who have to pay permanent full time staff just to answer a question which will take up 1 sq inch of newpaper space.

    BBC are one of the worst offenders for different journalists putting in similar (but not the same) questions at slightly different times resulting in a lot of additional work for the public sector.

  3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    A digital licence fee, supplementing the existing licence fee, collected from tech giants and Internet Service Providers

    This would make it a levy or a tax and not a fee. And, as it could be offset, it would effectively be revenue neutral, or a subsidy from the taxpayer to the licence payer, depending on how you view it. Better, and simpler, to extend the licence fee to cover every household with an internet connection as has been done in Germany and elsewhere. Yes, there'll be the usual gnashing of teeth that I don't watch the bloody BBC… but this applies to pretty much every charge (I don't drive a car but I still help pay for the roads…) and ignores the point that the licence fee is about the only way to ensure independence in the media.

    Oh, and the next time the government gets to appoint someone to the BBC Trust, or whatever the governing body is called, make sure they choose someone who cares about journalism.

    1. BigSLitleP

      How 'bout no

      I don't pay a licence fee because i don't watch bloody TV! Why would i pay UK.GOV money for my internet connection when it doesn't use any of their infrastructure? Forget it, sunshine. You want to pay for the BBC, you carry on. Leave me out of it. And as for "independent journalism".....

      a) There is no such animal

      b) The BBC is definitely not independent!

      1. Martin Gregorie Silver badge

        Re: How 'bout no

        I don't and won't have a TV in my house, so like you I don't and won't waste time watching it, but I DO listen to BBC radio and, more selectively, to internet streamed radio, not least because I can do something else while listening.

        So, I would be happy to pay for a BBC radio license if one existed.

        One other thing I want to see is the likes of Drooble, Farcebook and Amazon pay their fair share of UK taxes.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: How 'bout no

          @ Martin Gregorie

          "One other thing I want to see is the likes of Drooble, Farcebook and Amazon pay their fair share of UK taxes."

          They pay the legal share of taxes. No value has ever been attributed to fair but it is considered fair to play by the rules.

          1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

            Re: How 'bout no

            Amazon et al pay a fuck tonne of UK taxes & NI, just not necessarily at a corporate level.

          2. Roj Blake Silver badge

            Re: They pay the legal share of taxes.

            Correct. Amazon, Facebook and Google do indeed pay all of the tax that they are obliged to by the law. And that is why Corbyn is suggesting a change in the law.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: They pay the legal share of taxes.

              @ Roj Blake

              "And that is why Corbyn is suggesting a change in the law."

              Actually no. He is proposing a change to the law to prop up his chosen mouthpieces.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "I don't drive a car but I still help pay for the roads"

      I do drive a car and do pay for the privilege but very little of it goes to pay for the roads or anything else road-related.

      You know what would happen to the Corbyn tax. HMRC would label it hypothecated and, on the basis that they don't like hypothecated taxes, would just roll it into the general taxation pot and the intended beneficiaries would get little or nothing out of it. I would just become one more of those taxes that future chancellors would keep increasing and hoping nobody would notice.

      1. dedmonst

        Libertarian?

        "If govt does X which might be good then Y might happen in the future which isn't good"

        That seems like an argument for government never doing anything. Are you a libertarian?

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: Libertarian?

          WTF is a libertarian?

          Sure you don't mean librarian?

          Libertarian is not a single viewpoint, but includes a wide variety of perspectives. Libertarians can range from market anarchists to advocates of a limited welfare state, but they are all united by a belief in personal liberty, economic freedom, and a skepticism of government power.

          - From https://theihs.org/who-we-are/what-is-libertarian/

          I don't get it, sounds much the same as the usual 'limited government' 'not even from my cold dead hands' sentiments often spouted by those who through the 'libertarian' label around like it's like the same as 'has sex with dogs'.

      2. annodomini2 Bronze badge

        Treasury

        "HMRC would label it hypothecated and, on the basis that they don't like hypothecated taxes, would just roll it into the general taxation pot and the intended beneficiaries would get little or nothing out of it."

        Treasury would, not HMRC, they seriously don't like having their spending direction dictated to, elected representative or not.

    3. DavCrav Silver badge

      "I don't drive a car but I still help pay for the roads…"

      1) Non-drivers don't pay for the roads. Road users subsidize everyone else. I think the rate is £6 tax raised per £1 spent.

      2) You certainly use the roads, every time you have something delivered, get on a bus, in a taxi, go to the shops (whose goods were delivered by road), depend on the emergency services, etc. and so on.

    4. Chris G Silver badge

      @ Charlie Clark

      "Oh, and the next time the government gets to appoint someone to the BBC Trust"

      The government shouldn't be appointing anyone to the trust, there is enough criticism of the Beeb toeing various lines and it's reporting being biased. No government no matter their apparent beliefs is going to make an appointment that is truly non political. That's why governments shouldn't be able to appoint judges either.

      To be honest I don't see much independence in the majority of the media, they are nearly all allied to some cause and biased, which is why I like the Reg, you get the odd article that seems to have a bit of a flavour but by and large it is allied only with itself.

  4. Alan J. Wylie Silver badge

    ISPA's comments

    https://www.ispa.org.uk/ispa-comments-on-a-levy-to-fund-a-digital-licence-fee/

    increased prices ... divert resources ... slow down broadband rollout

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: ISPA's comments

      "increased prices ... divert resources ... slow down broadband rollout"

      Well, obviously. You don't think any extra costs would come out of the profits or shareholder dividends, do you?

      1. Paul

        Re: ISPA's comments

        Why would anyone run or own a business and not wants to make a profit?

        Are your suggesting nationalisation of all internet service providers in the UK?

        People who want to tax corporations fail to understand that those taxes are paid for by the customers.

  5. codejunky Silver badge

    Hmm

    As well as the usual robin (hood?) of steal from those who make money because people want their service to prop up Corbyns choice of propaganda outlet there were a few other interesting (not in a good way) suggestions-

    > Licence fee-payers would then choose individuals to represent their interests on the board, providing potential candidates met certain qualifying criteria. Would certain criteria be 'correct' political leaning? Class? Race/religion/sex/gender/soviet affiliation?

    > Require the BBC to publish equality data, including for social class, for all creators of its content, whether in-house or external. Because it is extremely important to emphasise the class system and divide people so we know who to listen to and who is not a comrade.

    > Recommend an independent fund to subsidise public service journalism, paid for by the tech companies. Why? Because people are not interested in it? Would this be to prop up the Guardian and would it be available to its counterpart the daily wail? How much are these tech companies (that people actually want and use) expected to cough up and is Dianne Abbott at all involved in the figures?

    May this nutter and his fellow nutters never get anywhere near power.

    1. David Webb

      Re: Hmm

      including for social class

      I work, therefore I am working class - said Bill Gates when he worked at Microsoft (he didn't but hey, it's true)

      1. Steve K Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        Absolutely - what actually IS social class?

        Is it income-based?

        is it education-based?

        Is it inherited-wealth-based?

        Is it job-based?

        Is it home-owners?

        Is it union membership-based?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Hmm

          "what actually IS social class?"

          A political construct which is essential to the functioning of the Labour party and similar institutions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmm

            And is needed my Jeremy C in order to bring back 'the good old days' when the Unions Ruled the country.

            Any moderate Lab MP who is not in Momentum may well be ousted as a candidate before the next election. I wonder when he'll change the name of the party to Momentum because they are the ones calling all the shots at the moment.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hmm

              "I wonder when he'll change the name of the party to Momentum because they are the ones calling all the shots at the moment."

              It will be interesting to see what happens at the Labour conference. Momentum are apparently pushing for a strong policy position against Brexit - whereas JC will want to avoid such a proposal.

        2. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

          Re: Hmm

          Yes.

        3. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: Hmm

          Absolutely - what actually IS social class?

          Used to be easier to classify, now, I think it's only really indicative of alcohol consumption patterns, the more 'higher class' the more likely you are to have alcohol in the house you don't drink almost immediately.

          That put's me middling to low, bottles are polished off in a day or two.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmm

            " [...] the more 'higher class' the more likely you are to have alcohol in the house you don't drink almost immediately."

            The sign of a gentleman used to be someone who got out of the bath to have a pee.

            1. Steve K Silver badge

              Re: Hmm

              What about if you get in the bath just to have a pee - is that aristocracy...?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Hmm

                "[...] - is that aristocracy...?"

                Depends on who is with you in the bath.

        4. Tom 64
          Windows

          Re: Hmm

          > "what actually IS social class?"

          It's a socially acceptable way for you get get shat on.

        5. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Hmm

          Absolutely - what actually IS social class?

          No-one's mentioned the Frost Report yet... Does anyone look up to Jeremy Corbyn?

        6. Julz

          Re: Hmm

          According to an expert on the radio last night, it's opportunity and aspiration based, so pick the bones out of that...

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Hmm

      So you refer the current system where the PM of the day selects some of the BBC Board and then they select the rest?

      Do you not see the problem with this?

      As someone who is clearly not a fan of Corbyn, would you prefer he parachuted in one of his mates to run the BBC as per the current rules, or would you rather he didn't have much of a say?

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        @ Roj Blake

        "So you refer the current system where the PM of the day selects some of the BBC Board and then they select the rest?"

        The system he proposes will give license payers a choice of those who meet his ''criteria' (he is a raving socialist). The problem I see is the desire to funnel money to the BBC without the BBC earning a penny. As it is with the TV tax and now his proposal to rip off successful and desired companies to prop up the failing.

      2. MarkW99

        Re: Hmm

        The only reservation is that with an elected body, pretty soon Corbyn or Momentum would have a very big say. They are very adept at taking over supposedly democratic institutions - the democracy of the committed - and once they are in there is nothing you can do to get them out.

    3. Tigra 07 Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Hmm

      Would have loved to make a Diane Abbott maths joke, but we're not allowed to criticise her terrible maths anymore since she claims it's apparently racist...Useless politicians we're not allowed to criticise...What an age we live in...

      1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        If you can't say "Fuck", you can't say "Fuck the government".

        Lenny Bruce

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Instead of creating new tax laws how about shoring up the existing ones?

  7. djstardust Silver badge

    Hmmmm

    How about the Leveson Enquiry anyone .......

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: How about the Leveson Enquiry anyone ...

      Implementing Leveson (including Leveson 2) in full is already Labour policy.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: How about the Leveson Enquiry anyone ...

        "Implementing Leveson (including Leveson 2) in full is already Labour policy."

        There are lots of things which are in the policy of opposition parties but cease to be as soon as that party gets into power. This applies to all parties. Most party supporters realise it. Unfortunately LibDem supporters seem to be an exception here so we've lost the ameliorating influence that that party brought to the 2010-2015 coalition.

  8. Warm Braw Silver badge

    Independent journalism

    Says the man who took part in a staged "interview" with an actress whose support for Corbyn is so democratically balanced that she said in The Guardian:

    Terrible thing to say. But we need a coup!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. tiggity Silver badge

    tax dodgers

    "Industry sources questioned the legality of a Labour government using revenue, rather than profits, as the basis for new taxes."

    .. maybe because the profits figures are artificially low due to slimy immoral tax dodges (oh, sorry, biz speak - tax efficient strategies) - if the tax system was not so broken (too easy for big companies not to pay anything like their proper share of tax) then there would be plenty of tax revenue to pay for stuff

    1. Persona

      Re: tax dodgers

      Tax on revenue is fine. It's called VAT.

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: tax dodgers

        VAT isn't a tax on revenue.

        VAT is a tax on consumption.

        This can be easily proved by the fact that no company with a turnover larger than £50,000 pays VAT. What they do is put 20% on top of all of their invoices and pass that money to the government, less a deduction for the 20% VAT they pay on other people's invoices. This makes VAT completely revenue neutral, minus the cost of the extra paperwork.

        So the people who actually pay VAT are the last person to pay an invoice in that chain who isn't VAT registered, and so can't claim the VAT back. Which will either be a very small company, like say a painter/decorator, or an ordinary consumer buying something in a shop.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: tax dodgers

          "This makes VAT completely revenue neutral"

          It's only neutral if that value of the goods and services you are selling are worth the sames as what you are buying. A large profitable company will never be able to make the two match up so they will be paying VAT on their profits.

          1. GlenP Silver badge

            Re: tax dodgers

            It's only neutral if that value of the goods and services you are selling are worth the sames as what you are buying. A large profitable company will never be able to make the two match up so they will be paying VAT on their profits.

            Assuming the company is VAT registered, not so. The company receives VAT income from its customers, it makes VAT payments to suppliers. The nett balance between those is either paid to or, occasionally, claimed from HMRC. To the business the overall impact is neutral.

          2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: tax dodgers

            It's only neutral if that value of the goods and services you are selling are worth the sames as what you are buying. A large profitable company will never be able to make the two match up so they will be paying VAT on their profits.

            No, no, no! That's not how VAT works at all. Let me explain a VAT return to you.

            The return asks for the VAT due this period on sales. So that's the 20% VAT we put on our invoices. So lets say we invoiced £10k this quarter (to make the figures easy). Our turnover is therefore £10k for the quarter. 20% VAT on that is £2k. So we owe the government £2k VAT. You understand that this was never our money. We put it on our invoice when we send it out. We're a business-to-business company, so all of our clients are VAT registered and so all pricing discussions are done net of VAT. Because they're going to claim that money back.

            Now we're asked for the VAT we reclaim in this period. That's the 20% extra that's been added to the invoices we pay by our suppliers. So lets say we're a nice profitable company and have spent £2k on stuff. The rest of the £8k difference is made up of wages and profits, and stuff like train travel and insurance that's all excluded from the VAT return. That means we've paid £400 of VAT this quarter to other companies.

            Then we get to total it all up. So the government owe us that £400 of VAT back. And we owe them £2k. Hence we pay the government £1600.

            The point here is that none of that money was ever ours. We can't keep the £2k we put on our invoices - that would be fraud. And the companies we buy stuff off can't keep the 20% they put on our invoices to us. We're all going to be giving it back to the government come the end of the quarter - but nobody ever talks about it. It's not mentioned in our price list, because we don't sell to consumers - and we discount it from all our calculations, becuase we don't pay it.

            Basically a VAT is exactly the same as a sales tax, just with tonnes more paperwork. And therefore much harder to avoid paying. Because the government are tracking it, they can ask me on my VAT form for our total turnover every quarter, and our total spending - which gives them more accurate GDP figures. But the net effect on the invoices down the value chain is zero, because everyone pays and collects it, then nets the two off against each other. Then, when it comes to the poor customer, they have to actually pay it.

            The mistake, that makes it look a bit like a tax on turnover, is that we'd be able to get away with charging 120% of our normal prices, but keeping the money. But when I negotiate price with people, I do it on net price, because none of us care about the VAT.

        2. Gary Heard

          Re: tax dodgers

          minus the cost of the extra paperwork.

          Which for small companies can be quite large

      2. Gary Heard

        Re: tax dodgers

        VAT is a tax on consumption, not on Profits. You, me, we all pay the VAT that the government decrees,

        I have a small business, I pay corporation tax as I have no chance to put my profits in a holding company in the Cayman islands (or any other Tax Haven)

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: tax dodgers

      There's lots of tax dodgers, no doubt. But that's still no excuse for doing something so economically illiterate as turnover taxes. They're disastrous.

      And if you want to put this in terms of class, they are absolutely fucking awful for the working classes. Because highly automated / higly profitable companies can cope with turnover taxes, it's the kind of low profit / low margin companies that can't - because as I said turnover taxes are economically illiterate and would put that kind of firm out of business. The alternative being to set them so low that they don't raise any money. And they're the kind of businesses that employ lower skilled workers. This is basically a recipe for forcing manufacturing jobs abroad.

      Not to mention that you'd get no more highly automated companies either. Who'd invest in a company where you have to pay tax on turnover, so can't offset that investment (a cost) against that tax?

      Tax is never free. Tax will always have costs and downsides. That's not an argument for not raising taxes, but you have to realise that someone is already using that money for something, and if you take it off them - you'll lose whatever they were using it for. That's called opportunity cost. So any tax policy needs to be designed to do the minimum harm to the economy compared to the money it raises.

      Probably the best way to avoid corporate tax avoidance is to reduce corporation tax to a very low level and raise income taxes, dividend taxes and maybe property/and taxes.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: tax dodgers

        "Probably the best way to avoid corporate tax avoidance is to reduce corporation tax to a very low level and raise income taxes, dividend taxes and maybe property/and taxes."

        Or the Irish method. Attract large multinational corporations to head-quarter in your country so that you can set corporation taxes low but still, due to the now enormous size of your tax base, bring in a tax-take entirely disproportionate to the size of your country's real economy. You have the additional advantage that that your local businesses also benefit from the low corporation tax. It has the disadvantage that you become very unpopular with your neighbours by taking what they regard as their taxation but can do nothing about as they've agreed international tax treaties that permit it.

      2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

        Re: tax dodgers

        "

        Probably the best way to avoid corporate tax avoidance is to reduce corporation tax to a very low level and raise income taxes ...

        "

        All that will then happen is that people will demand a salary increase to compensate them, and companies will eventually have no choice but to raise salaries, thus paying the increased taxation indirectly. Same goes for raising sales tax, council tax and anything else paid by "the people".

        Some companies will avoid that by outsourcing to overseas countries and shedding employees. Or moving their entire operation offshore. Which will of course decrease the total tax take.

        The general standard of living in the UK has been decreasing slowly but steadily for well over a decade. The government cannot increase taxation without increasing the rate at which our living standard goes down, because all forms of taxation left will ultimately impact the ordinary person. So long as it does not happen too quickly the "boiling frog" effect will keep people reasonably content, but do something to speed up the decline and you're facing massive civil unrest.

  10. Tinslave_the_Barelegged Silver badge

    <GASP>

    The Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition

    Wouldn't have known there was such a thing based on the amount of abstaining or rubber stamping the last two years have shown.

  11. John70

    Digital Tax

    It took longer than I thought it would for some politician to suggest taxing the Internet to fund the BBC.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Digital Tax

      In fairness, the licence fee has in the past been raided to pay for various digital rollouts.

  12. iron Silver badge

    Quality BBC programming died years ago, put it out of it's misery. If you can manage to do the same to ITV, 4 and 5 at the same time all the better. On the odd occasion I have the misfortune to see a TV showing broadcast programmes I wonder why they still exist.

    Local journalism has been a cesspool for decades. It is not worth saving, if it ever was.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The BBC still do some good factual programmes. Admittedly they are often a bit dumbed down - but not all of them. The recent three episodes of "The Five Billion Pound Super Sewer" were a good example of why I am happy to pay a licence fee. Even though I can't get terrestrial Freeview due to high rise buildings blocking two major transmitters.

  13. mintus55

    local radio

    if they are serious about raising money why not privatise local radio?

    these stations are really just a way to support your local football team, nothing else.

    radio derby, radio nottingham, and radio leicester play exactly the same music, the only difference is the local sports.

    local radio does nothing that cannot be done by the private sector.

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: local radio

      @mintus55 - local radio does nothing that cannot be done by the private sector.

      Except perhaps the avoidance of adverts.

    2. BongoJoe Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: local radio

      Local radio. I found the local radio in a hired vehicle early one morning and I picked up whatever the BBC considered to be the local topical stuff that people need to digest at that time of morning.

      I got two presenters talking about what they used their mobile phones for. The level of inane wittering was in insane and, worse, they got people to call in with their idiotic uses for their phones.

      If this were local radio, I thought, then I am having no more of it and managed to find the CD player and for most of the rest of the journey I had my own music. Until I made the mistake of hitting the wrong button and hearing the new Jo Wiley and Simon Mayo programme on Radio 2: that's gone all local radio "what, listeners, are your life hacks to getting your teenage bedrooms decorated? Call us on .... and let us know".

      Bloody hell. The BBC doesn't need funding - it needs bloody well harpooning.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: local radio

      "local radio does nothing that cannot be done by the private sector."

      From yours and the following comments, I can only assume that either we have decent local BBC radio here and are the exception, or it just varies by area/time of day.

      Commercial radio is, on the whole, not as good, by quite some way IMO and without local BBC radio to compete against, would only get worse.

  14. Trollslayer Silver badge
    Flame

    Word process tax

    To subsidise typewriters!

  15. Tsurotu
    Meh

    Yerrrs.

    Oh I'm sure this tax won't just be passed directly onto the consumer with a little extra for good measure...

  16. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    The BBC had its chance

    The BBC had a chance to compete honestly with Netflix, Sky and other content providers when we had the "digital switchover". At that time the standard could have included a requirement for all digital boxes & TV's to contain a card slot, enabling the BBC to become a subscription service whenever it wanted. It could today make its online services subscription based the same as Netflix et al.

    But why should it want a level playing field when it can force people to pay regardless of whether they watch BBC content or not?

    1. Walter Bishop Silver badge
      IT Angle

      The BBC had a chance to compete honestly with other content providers?

      They did once have a coherent digital policy but got shutdown through inxplicable execution mis-steps and legal challenges by News Corp, as presumably that would have cut into SKY revenue.

      March 2006: Ashley Highfield, director of the BBC's new media division, shared a platform with Microsoft boss Bill Gates

      April 2008: BBC technology chief bounces on to Project Kangaroo

      July 2008: Huggers confirmed as BBC new media director

      Aug 2008: Chris Dobson leaves Microsoft for BBC Worldwide

      Feb 2009: Microsoft Online Chief Baylay Joins BBC After Highfield’s Arrival

      Aug 2009: The BBC's former digital chief is now driving Microsoft's UK online operations

      Nov 2009: Microsoft has been in talks with the media giant News Corporation

    2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: The BBC had its chance

      The Beeb campaigned for set-top boxes to *not* have a card slot specifically to impede the path to the BBC becoming a subscription service.

  17. Walter Bishop Silver badge
    Big Brother

    BBC an even worse version of Faux News

    In the digital age, we should consider whether a digital licence fee could be a fairer and more effective way to fund the BBC .. This could also help reduce the cost of the licence fee for poorer households.”

    BBC an even worse version of Faux News. For one such example, listen here at 8:41 where the BBC chappie cuts off the interviewee when she tries to correct him on the China/Taiwan one nation agreement. The one signed by Nixons administration.

  18. 89724102172714182892114I7551670349743096734346773478647892349863592355648544996312855148587659264921

    Through bitter experience, I have eventually learned to mistrust:

    1. People with beards: They have more to hide than their ugly mugs.

    2. People who smile: Think Blair - his unhinged riktus makes Heath Ledger's Joker look mildly amused. Will Blair go the same way? We can only hope.

    ...purely on that basis, I find Corbyn absolutely terrifying. On the other hand, I could do with a free edddiekhaishyun.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Presumably any ISP tax will be passed on to subscribers - including the local newspapers who are now only surviving by being online rather than having paper editions.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "With Labour 10/11 to have the most seats at the next General Election, [...]"

    There is a dilemma for many "remain" voters. They tactically lswitcheded their votes in the last election to Labour on the basis of "ABC" (Anyone But Conservative). Corbyn has since resolutely told his MPs to support - or not oppose - the government's Brexit agenda.

    Those loaned votes are therefore not guaranteed to be his next time. Those voters can also be "idealists". Many will vote again for a small "no-hope party" of their preference - as being their only moral "choice" in an otherwise "no choice" situation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >There is a dilemma for many "remain" voters. They loaned their votes in the last election to Labour on the basis of "ABC" (Anyone But Conservative). Corbyn has since resolutely told his MPs to support - or not oppose - the government's Brexit agenda.

      That's because Corbyn's political mentor was Tony Benn who hated both the EEC and the EU, the man is equally unhinged as his middle class Trotskyite mentor.

      The worst of both worlds, Corbyn and Brexit.

  21. Mike 125

    Yes.

    "A strong, self-confident government could negotiate with these tech giants to create a fund, run entirely independently, to support public interest media."

    My instinct is that the tech giants are way beyond democratic influence, let alone control. On the other hand, the BBC is by definition completely enabled by government.

    The BBC gave us public interest media, which used to be exceptional quality by any international measure. Recently, the mistaken ratings chase (which I've only ever understood in the light of immoral executive and celebrity salaries) has led to a dramatic decline.

    So I'd give JC a chance. But then I don't trust a party controlled by hedge funds managers and semi-pubescent public school boys. And I do enjoy some stuff on BBC3 and Newsnight is still pretty good. So it's easy for me.

    Or maybe I'll just do as normal and vote Green. What difference does it really make...

  22. John Savard Silver badge

    Exactly the Wrong Way

    While independent journalism is a nice thing, taxing new and innovative businesses to support older forms of media is clearly going to impede progress. And the BBC's television license fee should never have been instituted, and it should be repealed as quickly as possible, not extended.

    Television was once the chief source of entertainment for lower-income households, and so a tax on television sets was a horribly regressive measure.

  23. TheMeerkat

    All Socialists when getting to power want to put the press under the government control, so that they could keep the power indefinitely. Why Corbyn would be different?

    1. Martin
      FAIL

      Oh my.

      I didn't see the Labour Party put the press under government control in 1945-51. Or in 1964-70. Or 1974-79. Or 1997-2010.

      OK, the last one was not even close to a Socialist government, but the other three were - particularly the first two.

      And do you think that the govenment being under the control of the press is an improvement? That's what we have at the moment.

  24. steviebuk Silver badge

    I haven't read this fully yet...

    ...but I don't understand. Why do the online companies need to support the BBC? Don't get me wrong, I like the BBC and it's programs. I like there being no adverts but why should big online companies have to pay for it? Who then decides what company is big enough that it then is required to pay a tax to fund the BBC? I don't object to the TV Licence to fund it but I do object to the TV Licence scare tactics I saw when purchasing my first one (Someone else was paying it for me before). The claim as I was purchasing, on their own site, that I was required one if I owned a VCR, DVD Player. Then once purchased it said "Actually no you don't need one if you only use a VCR, DVD player."

    So although I haven't read it yet, I was confused when I saw this article elsewhere.

  25. jms222 Bronze badge

    Isn't the BBC

    Sorry but isn't the BBC one of the largest "online" entities there is as well as being on the journalism side of the fence ?

  26. RobertLongshaft

    What a sad state of affairs we have in British politics.

    Labour: ran by a communist from 1974, a man who clearly missed the fall of the soviet union, who is openly anti British and who's economic policies consist of printing money and giving it away until the country goes bankrupt. If this clown ever gets into Downing street we'll be queuing for bread handed out by the military just like in Venezuela (a country Corbyn called 'a shining example of socialism').

    Conservative: ran by a liberal democrat Cruella DeVill look-a-like with the charisma of used toilet paper. A women who seems hell bent on getting the worse possible Brexit deal for the country and who is devoid of any creative individual thought. Make no mistake, May was a total disaster as home secretary and now she is a total disaster as Prime Minister.

    UKIP pretty much disappeared after the Brexit vote , the Lib Dems were slaughtered by Nick Clegg and the Greens have never had anything close to any reasonable and thought out policies.

    It's a national and international embarrassment for the country. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

    1. Steve K Silver badge

      Actually now it's clowns to the right (UKIP), jokers to the left (Corbyn/Abbott)

  27. Chronos Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Sod off, Corbyn

    Taxation by the back door. You know that this will be passed on to end users, so as much as your "reduce the licence fee for poorer households" looks appealing, it is, in reality, complete bollocks. In fact, you can also stuff the regressive TV licence up yer arse along with that red flag.

    "Compete with Netflix et al" by giving the Beeb an unfair advantage over and above the one they already have? What you're actually doing, rather unsurprisingly given your confessed inspirational heroes, is creating the British version of TASS.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019