ChelseaBoy

Well we can be sure they will not come from the UK.

Yes, the elephant in the room - population control.

It may seem too simplistic, but its not really. The Swedes took mass immigration to a new level considering the relative size of the country and now have an infrastructure that cannot support such numbers. If you want the truth i'd suggest not listening to BBC output.

1. To Jeremy: Does Gerry Adams take sugar in his tea? 2. To Boris: Did you have a go at Teresa May?

This is why the Swedish Democrats are making such big gains - this was a liberal social experiment that has gone badly wrong.

Not yet, but looks promising - let us know what you think.

That'll be Westminster's fault i'm sure.

Very statesmen like. I wonder why he was meeting them? He had no power or influence, either during the 70s or 80s, during the Blair years or since 2010 - This was a maverick meeting terrorists because it suited his own agenda at the time and now it's coming back to bite him.

News just in.......Not to be outdone, Labour are going to plant a tree for everybody in the country. They have promised that on every branch they will pin a £20 note and give it to us for free. They will get this money back by making Richard Branson and Roman Abramovich pay 600% tax and nicking a few quid from Google.

A wins a win, but shows just how far we have fallen.

First mistake spotted in the huge mess that is Labour's plan to take over the Internet in the UK. Diane Abbott definitely did these sums, but McDonnell repeated them lol How Corbyn got his broadband nationalisation numbers wrong – by a factor of three John McDonnell today explained that the broadband nationalisation plans are perfectly affordable – upkeep costs would just be £230m a year. This was based on a report from the National Infrastructure Commission. It compared going for full fibre with incremental upgrades of the copper system and gave a £6.9bn cost of operating full fibre over 30 years, so £6.9bn divided by 30 makes £230 million. Simples! Or is it? The sharp-eyed Sam Taylor spotted in the footnotes that £6.9bn is really a discounted cash flow figure. So dividing £6.9bn by 30 to arrive at an annual operating cost estimate of £230m “is therefore a catastrophic spreadsheet error. Or more accurately, the error is the failure to even use a spreadsheet”. When the sums are done properly, the annual operating costs of running a British Broadband Corporation would be an almighty £690m. So, as Taylor puts it, “McDonnell and his advisors are out by a factor of 3, because they don’t know how to use a spreadsheet. Staggering.” It's ok the tax payer will pick up the extra £460m per year on top of all the other costs of this fools errand.

Wow, i travelled from Dartford to Brentwood the other day and it took 4 hours for a 15 mile journey. The world is certainly getting smaller unless you travel via the M25

Portugal is often quoted in Europe , but the real kings of fibre are South Korea and other SE Asian countries where most people are centralised in a few large towns and apartment living is common such as Japan. TBH, if most people had 50 mb provided by Fibre to the Cab that would be enough for 75% of households currently , but those with multiple smart devices and gaming would need more - but truly a 500 mb to 1gb fibre connection would be overkill for everyone.

You probably have Fibre to the cabinet as 15m households are connected this way but its not true Fibre to the Premise. Unless you are one of the lucky 1m households already connected? You pay whoever is the supplier of the Broadband for the line as they buy it off Openreach.

That is because BT were prevented by Gov from beginning the rollout years ago as they wanted to establish a competitive Telecoms market. First with Mercury, then NTL/Telewest that became Virgin, and now the countless other ISPs or Network deployment company's. This technology was available years ago, and its going to take 10 years to cover the UK.