NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello all.

Being a British supporter of the Lib Dems, I am frustrated from voting by the fact that I will be almost two months too young. However, I am getting personally annoyed at this line by Labour - "A vote for Lib Dems will let in the Tories by the back door."

Any Lib Dem supporter who is thinking therefore of tactically voting Labour, I ask them first to read this article from the Independent:

Vote for Lib Dems will not let in the Tories (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634378)

Anyone else getting irritated at the misinformation put out by New Labour? It seems to be quite a good ploy to get those voters who do not want the Conservatives in. Reminds me of a quote from Animal Farm by George Orwell, where the working are kept in line by the threat that the Famer may come back.

In a way, I suppose it's a little promising, because it means that New Labour is seeing the shift to Lib Dem supporters as a serious thing to consider this time around.

Labour have devolved into 'Tory style' scare tactics.

yay conservative. they make rich and middle class people richer and poor people poorer, everybody wins.

Vote Lib Dem - its only a wasted vote as they dont have a chance in hell of even coming second.

I don't know if this ties in with what the thread starter is talking about but thought it might interest some of you. Found it this morning on the site for our states newspaper.

The Queensland gambit (http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15126328%255E954,00.html).

As a life-long Socialist I am one of the disenchanted mass of ex-Labour voters (and an ex-member of the party for that matter).

New Labour under Blair and his, unelected, inner circle are likely to reap a bitter harvest in the coming election. Blair is guilty of lying to Parliament, the Cabinet and the British public over the illegal Iraq war. At home he is guilty of presiding over a government that has actually managed to widen the gap between rich and poor. He has promoted (and effected) the stealth privatisation of hospitals, schools and the London Underground. Student Top-up Fees will see a further decline in the numbers of working class students in higher education.

Having said all that, would I (should I) vote for the Lib Dems? ok, they were against Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. ok, they make all the right noises about spending to improve services (without actually showing where the extra money would come from) ...... but, in the end, it has to be a resounding NO.

Parliamentarily they have never had to translate their rhetoric into actions in modern Britain. However, they do have a visible track record upon which to judge their behaviour in power - at the Local Government level.

All too often, when Lib Dems gain a majority (or make up the majority party when there is no overall control), they have either emulated Tory policy or sought them out as allies in a hung council. Their behaviour, in power, has never reflected the promises made to the electorate pre-election.

So, if I want to give Blair a bloody nose, I will most likely vote Green. They may stand as much chance of winning the election as The Monster Raving Loony Party ... or the Lib Dems, but I will at least be able to live with my conscience after May 5th.

It's not racist to impose limits on the number of darkies entering the country.

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Vote Conservative (like the BNP, but less likely to actually commit genocide)

It's not racist to impose limits on the number of darkies entering the country.

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Vote Conservative (like the BNP, but less likely to actually commit genocide)
That is cynical nonsense.

And the problem with a vote for the Lib Dems is the outside chance that it might let the Lib Dems in.

That is cynical nonsense.

And the problem with a vote for the Lib Dems is the outside chance that it might let the Lib Dems in.
oh no. i so hope that doesn't happen :rolleyes:

the problem is if everyone keeps saying "i'm not voting lib dem, i would but its a wasted vote cos they'll never get in", the WILL never get in. people need to stop saying and thinking that and maybe they will get in.
so if you're guilty of saying the above, fucking vote lib dem for gods sake :mad:

It's not racist to impose limits on the number of darkies entering the country.

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Vote Conservative (like the BNP, but less likely to actually commit genocide)
I hope you're being ironic. In which case Ha Ha.
Else you're a raving racist pillock.
Those "darkies" are the doctors, nurses, builders and manual workers etc ect. that we need to run business.
Why is it acceptable for middle aged, middle class people to retire to Spain without learning the language or giving anything to the country but unacceptable for anyone to move to the UK to make a new life.
Historically emigrants to this country have given a vast amount and I expect them to continue to do so.

As for the LIb Dems. I shall vote for them as Labour have no hope of overturning our local Tory and he has not managed to do anything about the lack of funding in our local schools (Leicestershire is the lowest funded school budget in the UK and is as much as £500 per child per year less than some areas) and neither has labour. Give 'em a go. Can they really be worse than Blaire or Howard?

i hope nobody here is intending to vote National Front. they want to actively deport all "non-whites" and "non-british nationals".
i can't even put into words how much that pisses me off


edit: lmao just read an appraisal of the BNP's manifesto. its pathetic :p

Street Crime
Lock up serial offenders in new Super Prisons to be built in remote, unpopulated parts of the UK, and the problem will gradually go away.

The Environment
Encourage people to cook their own food from basic ingredients, encourage small shops and hope that super markets whither away.

looks like there's a fair few half-baked 'hope for the best' policies here :rolleyes:


Terrorism
Prevent illegal aliens from entering the UK and monitor Muslims and the IRA closely.

Immigration/Asylum
We will stop all immigration and asylum immediately, the exception being white people coming from former colonies such as Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe).

racist? naaaah :rolleyes:

Transport
We need to encourage more people to work from home and encourage women back into being full time house wives.

:rolleyes:

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/E/elexion/who_do_i_vote_for/manifestos/BNP.pdf

It's not racist to impose limits on the number of darkies entering the country.

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Vote Conservative (like the BNP, but less likely to actually commit genocide)

No you see the BNP are racist whereas the Conservatives are merely moderate right wingers. By American standards most of them would be counted as left wing.

I can't vote until the next election as I'm not even 17 for nearly a month. But I'm annoyed that I will likely end up voting Lib Dem when I do vote. I feel my vote should go to Labour, but New Labour have wrecked that. I'm really quite annoyed with Blair.

I hate all this anti-Conservative propaganda. If anyone has a serious greivance with the Tories, raise it here and I'll do my best to persuade you otherwise.

I hate all this anti-Conservative propaganda. If anyone has a serious greivance with the Tories, raise it here and I'll do my best to persuade you otherwise.

It is annoying isnt it? But we'll never win on these boards as most of the British community here are left wingers.

It's not racist to impose limits on the number of darkies entering the country.

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Vote Conservative (like the BNP, but less likely to actually commit genocide)I'm thinking that the Tory Leader is a deeply racist and cynical individual who stupidly thinks he can manipulate peoples fears, into votes for his party of dinosaurs.

I'm thinking we need a sea change in how we elect the political representratives of our country. I'm thinking that the racist Howard should be booted out of his constituency and kicked out as leader of his loathsome Tory party.

That's what I'm thinking!

vote greeeeeeen!!!

I hate all this anti-Conservative propaganda. If anyone has a serious greivance with the Tories, raise it here and I'll do my best to persuade you otherwise.
Privatising everything was a huge mistake, as was the utter contempt they had for the workers.
So people voted in Labour and unwittingly got more of the same.
Will Lib Dem be any different?
Probably not, but they can afford to balls things up less than Tory or Labour.
And if they do, people will turn on them pretty quickly, which hopefully will be a wake-up call.

Lib Dems usually come second in each constituency [in the ones where they don't come first], sometimes this can mean they get more votes than the majority party.

I agree, Greens probably have the best policies, in fact I always vote for them in the Euro elections [and they even get in sometimes, too, grrr UKIP grrr]
I shall be voting Lib Dem [as usual] at the General Election tho.
Yay regime change!

I'm thinking that the Tory Leader is a deeply racist and cynical individual who stupidly thinks he can manipulate peoples fears, into votes for his party of dinosaurs.

I'm thinking we need a sea change in how we elect the political representratives of our country. I'm thinking that the racist Howard should be booted out of his constituency and kicked out as leader of his loathsome Tory party.

That's what I'm thinking!

Ah well. Estimately 33% of the 61% expected to vote will be probably be voting Conservative, if the polls are correct. They are obviosuly thinking the oppsite to what you are thinking.

It is not racist to impose immigration quotas: thats what America, Australia and Canada do and their immigration system is far more fair than ours. Firm yes, but fair.

I'm thinking that the Tory Leader is a deeply racist and cynical individual who stupidly thinks he can manipulate peoples fears, into votes for his party of dinosaurs.

I'm thinking we need a sea change in how we elect the political representratives of our country. I'm thinking that the racist Howard should be booted out of his constituency and kicked out as leader of his loathsome Tory party.

That's what I'm thinking!
I'm thinking it would be nice if for once someone provided a rational critique of conservative policy instead of just spewing forth pejoratives. That's what I'm thinking.

I don't give a monkeys what effect voting Lib Dem will have on the other parties.

Blair's suggesting that we should vote tactically, his abandonment of old labour (why did he join the party if he just wanted to turn it into a new one?), and his ignoring of his (pre1997) promise to look into proportional representation show his complete lack of concern for democracy and move us towards a two party system with no choice.

Vote for who you believe in!

Has anyone else got the 'Legalise Cannabis Alliance' running up by them? I completely disagree with their policies but if I didn't favour Labour I might vote for them.

I'm thinking it would be nice if for once someone provided a rational critique of conservative policy instead of just spewing forth pejoratives. That's what I'm thinking.I'm thinking it's not necessary to do that. The cynical tories do an excellent job of alientating the rest of the country all by themselves. What can I add, except a deeply felt loathing of their selfish, exploitative and racist attitudes

I'm thinking it's not necessary to do that. The cynical tories do an excellent job of alientating the rest of the country all by themselves. What can I add, except a deeply felt loathing of their selfish, exploitative and racist attitudes
Which once again says nothing again except for your own opinions. Not a shred of argument. And that assertion is false, anyway - if they had alienated the entirety of the country, they would not be the second-largest party, would they?

This sounds like the U.S. and all the third parties.

Which once again says nothing again except for your own opinions. Not a shred of argument. And that assertion is false, anyway - if they had alienated the entirety of the country, they would not be the second-largest party, would they?I think that given they are a minority of 30%, they have indeed alientated the rest of the country. Apart from your own opinion on the worth of the tories, you don't say anything that would change my opinion of their racist, exploitative, divisive and damaging approach to the rest of the country.

I think that given they are a minority of 30%, they have indeed alientated the rest of the country. Apart from your own opinion on the worth of the tories, you don't say anything that would change my opinion of their racist, exploitative, divisive and damaging approach to the rest of the country.

YouGov puts the polls as following

Labour 36/7%
Conservatives 32/3%
Lib Dem 22/3%

Obviously 33% of the country, most of whom are not racist, disagree with you and your pathetic attempts to force the issue of immigration back into the shadows.

You know, conservatives seem like Manchester United supporters to me, wining to labour, "Okay, you've your fun, now give us back power." And then throwing a mardy because they arn't winning.

I voted Holland because it has two l's in a row.

YouGov puts the polls as following

Labour 36/7%
Conservatives 32/3%
Lib Dem 22/3%

Obviously 33% of the country, most of whom are not racist, disagree with you and your pathetic attempts to force the issue of immigration back into the shadows.:headbang: The Times Poll puts Labour at 40%, tories at 30% and Liberal Democrats at 22%

As a soon to be NHS employee and a firm supported of free healthcare I will vote lib dem. I do not trust the labour party (foundation hospitals, dubious targets, private subcontracting) or the conservatives (part payment to go private, history of privatisation) to leave the NHS as a free national service.

I am also in favour of electoral reform (lib dem) and proper reform of the house of lords (not just putting in a bunch of labour cronies)

Just so we're all clear, yes I was taking the piss with that one. I'm not really a racist, nor am I one of those people who isn't a racist but doesn't like people who aren't white.

As for the Tories, I have to admit I've not really follow much of their policies, but that wasn't what i was attacking. What I was underlining was their cynical fearmongering and exploitation of an extremely sensitive topic to try to win votes. Kudos, those, for nailing Blair on having spoken almost wall-to-wall bullshit for the past 2 years. Shame they couldn't have been this vociferous when there was an illegal invasion, and not an election at stake.

Pesonally, I hate election time in this ocuntry, cause Labour and the Conservatives are so similar in terms of policy, both being pretty much centrist parties, that it feels like voting for the word of a policy, rather than an actual policy you believe in. I'll be voting Lib Dem, wasted vote or not. They'd do better to get themselves a more charasmatic leader, and maybe, just maybe, stop pandering to students all the fucking time.

I have to say that I'm glad the BNP is around these days. At first, like everyone else, I thought these guys were serious racists, queer-bashers, bad people. Then I realised that actually, it's all just a very cleverly constructed peice of live action political satire. Remove all non-whites from the UK? THEN build a brilliant health system? Genius! And let's not forget the inexplicable claim on the rough, paper letter from my local BNP candidate claiming that the only reason his pamphlet was on paper, rather than glossy sheets, was because his fliers were printed cheaply and locally, unlike the other parties who print their leaflets in "foreign sweatshops".

Shit, just for fun, here's the full text:

WE ARE DIFFERENT

The other parties all have glossy leaflets. Why don't we?

They take £millions from big business and far-left union leaders. They're bought and paid for, which is why they let ordinary people down when they get elected. And many of their glossy leaflets are printed by cheap labour in foreign sweatshops, so all that money goes abroad.

The British National Party relies on donations from ordinary British people like you. So we can't afford flashy leaflets - but we're not in anyone's pockets either.

Probably because they're not on the same planet as anyone else. A quick glance over the printlines of other election fliers:
Greatledge Printers, Pink bank Lane, United Emirates Of Longsight (Lab)
HTTPrint Ltd, Chapletown, People's Republic Of Sheffield (UKIP)
THR, Bristolistan (LibDem)

And then, on their lchecklist of main goals, they say they will "take the Politically Correct handcuffs off the police and put them on the criminals". Now, I appreciate what they're saying here is they'll give the police carte blanc to go around stomping on anyone who looks a bit funny, but the way that reads is that the the police will be free to act as inappropriately as they like, mean while the handcuffs of political correctness will be put on the criminals. Presumably a BNP victory would mean muggers being encouraged to attack on an equal opprtunities basis, perhaps with a quota to fill, or a proportional ratio to adhere to. Sorry mate, you've not mugged enough asian people this month.

This below their claim that labour have wasted "£billions on the EU". I'm not sure how much a "£billion" is, but it's spurious inclusion of the almight sterling sign makes me think it must be a significant amount!

Oh man, I could go on, but you all get the point. To top it, the candidate, Richard Chadfield, looks like the bald guy out of Bottom, imagined through the lens of a Soviet propaganda poster

However, I am getting personally annoyed at this line by Labour - "A vote for Lib Dems will let in the Tories by the back door."

I wouldn't worry. With any amount of luck, a vote for the Tories won't let in the Tories.

:headbang: The Times Poll puts Labour at 40%, tories at 30% and Liberal Democrats at 22%

Listen: rather than being a pedantic and ignorant fool blithely spewing poll results (which are most probably wrong, given that this is a 'marginal election'), why don't you name one plank of Conservative policy which is "racist"?

And to the individual who claimed the Tories privatised everything and treated 'workers' (by that, I expect you mean 'proleteriat') with contempt: three things.

1) Their privatisation was no bad thing. BT for one. British Gas. Electricity. I
could go on.
2) The Tories support the minimum wage.
3) The Tories have also proposed a new scheme which will reward saving by
those on low incomes.

I think that given they are a minority of 30%, they have indeed alientated the rest of the country. Apart from your own opinion on the worth of the tories, you don't say anything that would change my opinion of their racist, exploitative, divisive and damaging approach to the rest of the country.
They are not a minority party with thirty percent: that is the second-largest proportion after Labour. And I have not asserted anything about them or their policies; I am merely requesting that if you are going to do so, you do so in an informed manner and with some sort of proper argument rather than by making sweeping and unsupported statements.

It is annoying isnt it? But we'll never win on these boards as most of the British community here are left wingers.
Why can't you win? You're fighting with words not knives here. Numbers don't matter. If you're able to argue your points well you can win no matter how many people disagree with you.

I'm thinking it would be nice if for once someone provided a rational critique of conservative policy instead of just spewing forth pejoratives. That's what I'm thinking.

Ok. Here's an explanation of my general concerns about this election:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8777294&postcount=51

and here are my problems with the Tories' ideas specifically (I posted this when Europlex promised to respond to any issues anyone might have with the Tories - I didn't get an answer from Europlex and I'm interested to see what a conservative supporter has to say)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784218&postcount=55

Ok. Here's an explanation of my general concerns about this election:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8777294&postcount=51

and here are my problems with the Tories' ideas specifically (I posted this when Europlex promised to respond to any issues anyone might have with the Tories - I didn't get an answer from Europlex and I'm interested to see what a conservative supporter has to say)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784218&postcount=55
Thank you! Not that I would agree with you, but that is not the point...

Thank you! Not that I would agree with you, but that is not the point...

I'd be interested to know what you think specifically of the Tories' apparent prioritisation of immigration and a minor, vague tax cut, over the threat of climate change?

I am also in favour of electoral reform (lib dem)

I'm voting LibDems mainly on that alone pretty much, and raising tax a bit on the highest 1% of earners.

I thought immigration should be an election issue, but I never expected Howard to make it the ONLY issue. . . And saying that other parties policies could lead to race riots was blatantly crap, especially considering that all the parties are looking in some way to reform the system.

Not enough constitutional issues, which is a shame, that'd have made it more exciting in my opinion. Instead it's just all the parties saying how they are really the ones who are going to make pensions, NHS, education, and policing better. . .

Right, it's time to correct some false assertions I've seen up here:

1) The Conservatives support immigration on an economic and cultural basis.
They propose a cap agrred by Parliament, the CBI and ethnic groups.
They also propose a points system to prioritise those economic migrants
with key skills. It is therefore very unlikely to damage the economy. They
also want to take in MORE genuine refugees fleeing persecution than
Labour and the Liberals.

2) The Conservatives published a rather large policy document on the
environment, and opposed the erosion of civil liberties in the name of
counter-terrorism.

3) It is perfectly possible to spend more on public services, cut taxes and
reduce borrowing IF the money can be found. The Conservatives have set
out - in unprecedented detail - £34 billion of savings that can be made at
the expense of waste and bureaucracy. The IFS have said these can be
found. The reason Labour will have to raise taxes by roughly £11 billion is
becuase they can't find the cash that the Tories have.

4) Um...what's wrong with toughening durg laws?

5) The waging of an election campaign (in which all sides have conducted
themselves badly) ought not to be the primary issue for voters. It is the
POLICY that counts.

Some of the rubbish dressed up as unassailable fact on here has now been shot down.I hope you can now vote Conservative in peace with your liberal consciences.

I'd be interested to know what you think specifically of the Tories' apparent prioritisation of immigration and a minor, vague tax cut, over the threat of climate change?
Oh dear - I avoid actually arguing about politics like the plague; it seems to me that one would have to study it as a full-time ocupation to be sufficiently informed, and I hate talking about things I know little about. So I content myself with picking holes in what other people say instead. Still...

...ummm, well, yes, the lack of priority given to climate change is disturbing - but, frankly, Labour is not significantly better...

... tax cuts am somewhat ambivalent about: whilst I was at school I was all for higher taxes, but now that I am at university and facing the prospect of earning money in a few years' time, my feelings about having a large segment of said earnings taken from me have cooled somewhat...

...and the Tory policy on immigration seems frankly sensible. This is a small and crowded country, and it would seem silly to crowd it more - and I cannot help but feel that since population growth will have to stop at some point, it might as well stop at a reasonable size. In addition to which, frankly it is sad to see the degredation of British culture as it is. Yes, yes, it is a constantly-changing thing, but it seems to be changing very rapidly. I do not say this as a bigoted hater of other cultures - very far from it - but I think what many people forget is... this is awkward to phrase, so forgive the clumsiness... many British people seem to see Britain as The World, some gigantic place, or at least The Centre of the World, the sort of standard place, a hum-drum reality - an attitude that is probably the relic of Empire, or possibly narrow-mindedness caused by lack of foreign travel. But if one steps outside and takes a look from a non-British perspective, one sees that our culture (which many Britsh people never seem to realise even exists - again, the view of one's home country as the sort of base-line of culture, if you see what I mean) is just as quirky and exotic as any other. And just as interesting, and just as valuable. Not better, as some seem to think, just equal. And would seem to me to be a terrible thing to actively promote its erosion.

Hmmm, this seems to have turned into a little rant against our glorious multi-cultural society. Back to immigration... umm, yes, so a limit on immigration seems sensible both from the point of view of population growth, and cultural preservation. That said, all of that applies only to economic migration - refugees are a different matter. I think frankly we are obliged to take such people in, but I was under the impression that the conservative policy was to do with accepting genuine refugees in preference to economic migrants.

(A little aside on taking in refugees... doing so is just a pathetic sop to our consciences. The most unfortunate, those really, truly suffering - the millions of starving and penniless that usually seem to be somewhere remote and godless in Africa for example - have no chance of getting here. There is so much that we (the developed world collectively) could do to improve such situations at their roots - development, economic reform, and (dare I say it?) the toppling of corrupt dictators and the imposition of just rule.... and instead we sit here in our decadence and do nothing - and then feel righteous and moral when we are able to take in the comparative few able to reach. This I only say because I cannot help feeling that for all the pretenses of ethical superiority by certain sections of the political world, and the aspersions cast by them onto the rest, they are no more prepared to be serious about this issue those they deride.)

Hmmm, that is all rather confused. And entirely off the point of the original question, too... I seem to have just got carried away. Ah, well, I might as well leave it - it is hard to be embarassed by one's idiocy on here... possibly looming exams are addling my brain....arrggghh...

mmm, that last post really was very long and very incoherent, wasn't it? I should Europlex's instead if I were you; it really is much better...

Right, it's time to correct some false assertions I've seen up here:

1) The Conservatives support immigration on an economic and cultural basis.
They propose a cap agrred by Parliament, the CBI and ethnic groups.
They also propose a points system to prioritise those economic migrants
with key skills. It is therefore very unlikely to damage the economy. They
also want to take in MORE genuine refugees fleeing persecution than
Labour and the Liberals.

2) The Conservatives published a rather large policy document on the
environment, and opposed the erosion of civil liberties in the name of
counter-terrorism.

3) It is perfectly possible to spend more on public services, cut taxes and
reduce borrowing IF the money can be found. The Conservatives have set
out - in unprecedented detail - £34 billion of savings that can be made at
the expense of waste and bureaucracy. The IFS have said these can be
found. The reason Labour will have to raise taxes by roughly £11 billion is
becuase they can't find the cash that the Tories have.

4) Um...what's wrong with toughening durg laws?

5) The waging of an election campaign (in which all sides have conducted
themselves badly) ought not to be the primary issue for voters. It is the
POLICY that counts.

Some of the rubbish dressed up as unassailable fact on here has now been shot down.I hope you can now vote Conservative in peace with your liberal consciences.
1)Michael Howard has said that an incoming Conservative government would ask parliament to approve a limit on the maximum number of refugees allowed into the United Kingdom. A quota of around 20,000 a year would be set - even though it could mean genuine refugees are refused the right to refuge and asylum in Britain. Applicants for entry to the UK would be processed at offshore asylum centres.

2)How do Civil liberties in Counter-terrorism link with the environment? But how can intercepting and using internet and phone evidence in Court equal rspecting civil liberties?

3)But members of the Conservative Party have said that they won't work without cutting investment in Public Services (Howard Flight).

4) Depends which drugs...

5)And the policies of the Conservative Party are managable.

All of you are forgetting the most important issue of an election, tax. The Labour goverment has an obssision about taking peoples own money away and giving it to people who didnt work for it. Tony Blair and his wife are over payed Laywer shites, they are only intrested in their own power and use socalism and the abuse of the middle class to achive this. They want to freeze tax at the lowest and highest levels, whilst burdening the middle class with even more tax. FOR WHAT?! What is the point of getting an education, working hard and achiving if some shits in White hall decide that you dont deserve any rewards for it. Socalism is a stupid ideal doomed to failure. Its only supporter are poor and stupid rich who like giving their money away. Damm the Liberal democrats their a pale shadow of their predocessors, grabbing on to flowery politics that will never work. Side Show Bob said it best, 'you need us to lower taxes, brutalise criminals and rule you like a king,' and its true Labour is destroying the work ethic and the viability of this country for Tony Blair's own ego. We need a strong right wing party, the Tories should sack all their old vangard and install some decent personell. If this dosnt happen Britain is fucked.

1)Michael Howard has said that an incoming Conservative government would ask parliament to approve a limit on the maximum number of refugees allowed into the United Kingdom. A quota of around 20,000 a year would be set - even though it could mean genuine refugees are refused the right to refuge and asylum in Britain. Applicants for entry to the UK would be processed at offshore asylum centres.

2)How do Civil liberties in Counter-terrorism link with the environment? But how can intercepting and using internet and phone evidence in Court equal rspecting civil liberties?

3)But members of the Conservative Party have said that they won't work without cutting investment in Public Services (Howard Flight).

4) Depends which drugs...

Okay. Let's hack this latest incoherent ramble apart.

1) You're missing the point. Your sole disagreement with Conservative immigration policy seems to be over genuine refugees. The Tories will take in MORE - I repeat: MORE - refugees than Labour and the Liberals. They will review the humanitarian situation before setting the annual cap. They propose to limit unfounded immigration.

2) You said in an earlier post that civil liberties and the environment were two important issues that the Tories were ignoring. I replied to that statement accordingly. With regards to intercept evidence, it is very respectful of civil liberties. Lemme explain. Currently, security services can bug your phone but can't use that in evidence against you. What the Conservatives want to do is to stop instances of lengthy imprisonment without trial by making this evidence admissable in court. This is the case in virtually every Western country. So, to those who understand the policy, it is very pro-civil liberties.

3) No. Howard Flight did not say that. Howard Flight said that there was a secret agenda to cut public services. He resigned for lying and misrepresenting policy. He most certainly did not claim that the savings couldn't work. The widely respected IFS have looked over the plans, and given them the thumbs up.

4) They want to put cannabis back as a Grade B drug. That's not a widespread policy of making durg laws harsher.

Hope this helps.

Okay. Let's hack this latest incoherent ramble apart.

1) You're missing the point. Your sole disagreement with Conservative immigration policy seems to be over genuine refugees. The Tories will take in MORE - I repeat: MORE - refugees than Labour and the Liberals. They will review the humanitarian situation before setting the annual cap. They propose to limit unfounded immigration.

2) You said in an earlier post that civil liberties and the environment were two important issues that the Tories were ignoring. I replied to that statement accordingly. With regards to intercept evidence, it is very respectful of civil liberties. Lemme explain. Currently, security services can bug your phone but can't use that in evidence against you. What the Conservatives want to do is to stop instances of lengthy imprisonment without trial by making this evidence admissable in court. This is the case in virtually every Western country. So, to those who understand the policy, it is very pro-civil liberties.

3) No. Howard Flight did not say that. Howard Flight said that there was a secret agenda to cut public services. He resigned for lying and misrepresenting policy. He most certainly did not claim that the savings couldn't work. The widely respected IFS have looked over the plans, and given them the thumbs up.

4) They want to put cannabis back as a Grade B drug. That's not a widespread policy of making durg laws harsher.

Hope this helps.
I believe you're confusing me with someone else, but no matter.

1)It would be interesting to know how many more refugees would be allowed to enter the UK as currently there are approx. 85000 refugees claiming asylum in the UK (2002 figures courtesy The Refugee Council). As Conservative plans have hinted at a limitation of 20000 a year, it seems difficult to say they would allow in more...

2)As already mentioned, I believe you are confusing me with someone else and my reply was based around your post.
I understand the law, and the proposed changes by the Conservative Party. Within the confinees of that point I can accept the improvement, however, I question their overall position on civil liberties. They oppose the Human Rights Act 1998 and are considering repealing it, not very good on civil liberties there.

3)Importantly, Howard Flight did not resign, he was fired. He resigned as deputy chairman, but it was Mr Howard who banned him from standing as a Conservative MP, when he poured metaphorical water over the Conservative spending plans, claiming that they could " actually get on with what needed doing" after the election, as current spending and cuts had been "sieved" to make them politically acceptable.
The IFS has, in theory, passed the Conservative spending plans, however they also say that "the IFS could not determine whether it was realistic for these reductions to be delivered."

4)Though I disagree with that position, I do agree that it isn't a general hardening of drug laws.

Thank you for providing well thought out answers and not falling into the trap of merely screaming the other person is wrong. I look forward to your well thought out reply.

2)As already mentioned, I believe you are confusing me with someone else and my reply was based around your post.
I understand the law, and the proposed changes by the Conservative Party. Within the confinees of that point I can accept the improvement, however, I question their overall position on civil liberties. They oppose the Human Rights Act 1998 and are considering repealing it, not very good on civil liberties there.

But you should know, my dear fellow, that there is a significant difference between Human Rights and British Human Rights (as advocated by the Conservatives)..
Much like Representative Democracy (PR) and British Representative Democracy (First-Past-The-Post).
What a funny world we live in!

Right, it's time to correct some false assertions I've seen up here:

1) The Conservatives support immigration on an economic and cultural basis.
They propose a cap agrred by Parliament, the CBI and ethnic groups.
They also propose a points system to prioritise those economic migrants
with key skills. It is therefore very unlikely to damage the economy. They
also want to take in MORE genuine refugees fleeing persecution than
Labour and the Liberals.

They "propose a cap agrred [sic] by Parliament", where they will have a majority should they win the election and "the CBI" who are theoir buddies. Who knows which "ethnic groups" will be consulted.
They will also repeal the Geneva Convention, making them the UK the only country ever to do so. For those that don't know all this does is stop a country sending a genuine asylum seeker back to their country of origin, where they will be killed for reasons of race, religion or politics. They will also repeal the Human Right Act, and have to withdraw from the EU to get their asylum policies through.
The Tories seem to be trying to pander to everyone by saying they will "take in MORE genuine refugees", even though they promise to vut the number of aslum seekers. When Howard is takne up on this he infers all aslyum seekers are actually illegal immigrants yet somehow a quota would stop any illegal immigrant getting into the country. He then goes on to claim that somehow, without ID or citizenship these illegal immigrants can claim benefits?

2) The Conservatives published a rather large policy document on the
environment, and opposed the erosion of civil liberties in the name of
counter-terrorism.

Even though they support ID cards?


3) It is perfectly possible to spend more on public services, cut taxes and
reduce borrowing IF the money can be found. The Conservatives have set
out - in unprecedented detail - £34 billion of savings that can be made at
the expense of waste and bureaucracy. The IFS have said these can be
found. The reason Labour will have to raise taxes by roughly £11 billion is
becuase they can't find the cash that the Tories have.

No, they have earmakred £12bn of savings. They will spend £4bn of that on tax cuts and £8bn on reducing borrowing. However they will then magic another £30bn to increase spending. Anyone can see that you cannot reduce taxes and increase spending, especially not with 0.6% growth.

4) Um...what's wrong with toughening durg laws?

Nothing, excpet maybe it should be seen as a health not criminal problem and treated as such. Sending junkies to prisons where they can learn new tricks helps no one, rehab does.

5) The waging of an election campaign (in which all sides have conducted
themselves badly) ought not to be the primary issue for voters. It is the
POLICY that counts.

Funny how while Labour has tried to talk about economic policy, the Tories have kept coming back to Iraq and the trust of Blair. Just look at their posters.

1) Their privatisation was no bad thing. BT for one. British Gas. Electricity. I could go on.

Privatisation of hospital cleaning services leading to the state on cleaniness the Tories now attack was "no bad thing" then?

2) The Tories support the minimum wage.

Not at the time they didn't, they opposed it claiming it would lead to mass unemployement or some such rubbish. They then changed their mind once they saw public opinion was against them, as they didn't want to seem mean-spirited.

Okay, more false assertions. I'll try to deal with them one at a time.

1) No, it's not "difficult to say they would let in more [refugees]". They will. The figure you refer to concerns those CLAIMING asylum, and not those admitted. The Tories also say they will work towards international agreement to ensure every asylum seeker is accepted somehere in the world.

2) So before 1998 there were NO civil liberties?? Come on. The Human Rights Act is too loose on language and allows compensation culture, planning abuses and prisoners getting access to porn under their "right to information".

3) You're right about Flight. You must however concede that he didn't say the Tories couldn't deliver on their spending plans. The IFS have privately sanctioned the delivery aspect of the plans, but cannot do so publicly (being independent).

Next person:

4) You should look at their website where they set out which groups they will consult. The CBI are no-one's "buddies": they are a group of powerful businessmen who will look after their own interests when consulted on the cap, and rightly so. The Geneva Convention, as Blair and Kennedy have conceded, is 50 years out of date. The Tories do not have to withdraw from the EU, just the unsigned EU Constituion which has not even been accepted in Europhile France. I'm not sure your rather convoluted final point is clear enough for a simpleton Tory such as myself.

5) The Tories don't support ID cards in practice. They do think they are a good idea in principle to tackle organised crime and terrorism (concurring with 80% of the British public). I was referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill when I made the comments re. civil liberties.

6) You're out of your head on savings! They have earmarked £34 billion savings (most inherited from Labour's Gershon Review). So if you have a cash reserve such as that, of course you can put the money into different things.

7) Rheab. is very much supported by the Tories. They want 13,000 new drug rehab. places (more than any other party) and will offer first time drug offenders the choice of prison or rehab. under court supervision.

8) Um, remember the Fagin and flying pig posters?> And if you're so piously concerned on the economy, you should rectify your mistake where you claimed the economy is growing by 0.6%. More like half that.

9) Privatisation with competition to boot genuinely does drive up standards. The problem with hospital cleaning is that there is no competition. If the competition is there, it works.

10) Note my usage of the present tense when I said the Tories support the minimum wage. Talking about the past is becoming very tedious to the electorate, as marginal seat polls clearly show. And Labour have NOT been talking about economic policy for the future. They have been harping on about the golden legacy they inherited from the Tories, ignoring the fact that the world market has been the only thing sustaining their economy propped up by mass borrowing and lying about Conservative policy on the economy and healthcare.

Please feel free to reply.

They also want to take in MORE genuine refugees fleeing persecution than Labour and the Liberals.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting this, as I haven't heard anything of the sort. It seems odd, given that they want to impose an absolute limit on the number of asylum seekers allowed in. The very concept of an absolute limit on the number of human beings in serious distress that we are willing to offer help to is absurd.

2) The Conservatives published a rather large policy document on the environment, and opposed the erosion of civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism.

They have shown absolutely no commitment to environmental issues. They don't even care enough to talk about them in their campaign, and given the scientific assessments that have emerged in recent months (such as the possibility that we might reach a point of no return on climate change in as little as 10 years), it ought to be a priority.

As to civil liberties, they should have refused outright to accept the notion that the government should get to put people under house arrest merely on the suspicion that they may be going to commit terrorist acts. Instead, they just suggested alterations like sunset clauses then promptly forgot about it.

The reason Labour will have to raise taxes by roughly £11 billion is becuase they can't find the cash that the Tories have.

That's absurd. If labour and the liberals believed it was even vaguely feasible to make the savings the Tories are promising, they'd jump on the bandwagon immediately and promise increased quality without raising tax. It's not like the Tories have magical powers that somehow make them better at finding examples of waste.

4) Um...what's wrong with toughening durg laws?

I find it offensive that the state should be allowed to tell adults that they aren't allowed to make informed choices about their own bodies. I recognise that there are decent arguments against me when it comes to harder drugs, especially more addictive ones, but coming down hard on something like cannabis is just absurd.

The waging of an election campaign (in which all sides have conducted themselves badly) ought not to be the primary issue for voters. It is the POLICY that counts.

I simply find it very difficult to support political parties which are making their campaigns increasingly empty - they're becoming more and more like commercial marketing strategies, all about image and totally lacking in coherent political philosophy. Plus, the lack of priority given to certain important issues suggests that the parties simply don't care about them.

All of you are forgetting the most important issue of an election, tax.

No - my point is that the focus on fairly minor differences in tax commitments is wrong. There are more important things going on in the world, which ought to be the main focus of this election.

Privatisation of hospital cleaning services leading to the state on cleaniness the Tories now attack was "no bad thing" then?

Bang on the money. There are 2 main problems with relying on the market for public services, as I see it:

1 - the private sector's drive is efficiency, which often means cutting quality for the sake of profit. The focus in our public services should be on quality, and we should be prepared to sacrifice a little value-for-money to improve value.
2 - For a market to produce the best products, consumers must compare the products on offer and pick the best one. You can't comparison shop for emergency services, nor can you comparison shop for the best train-line from Waterloo to Twickenham - there's only one.

...ummm, well, yes, the lack of priority given to climate change is disturbing - but, frankly, Labour is not significantly better...

No, they aren't. The only party giving the issue the primacy it needs is the Green Party, but they're sentimentalist environmentalists who would try and solve it without nuclear power. They'd probably also have issues with quite a few proposed wind turbines and tidal dams, and hydroelectric dams have recently been shown to result in substantial methane emissions (due to plants being drowned and rotting when the water levels behind the dam rise each year) which make them at times worse than fossil fuel plants for the greenhouse effect, since methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Which leaves us with limited options.

We need a party for pragmatic environmentalists, who base their environmental protection on a need to preserve the systems that allow civilisation to continue, rather than on the sentimentalist approach that objects to wind turbines because they spoil the view, and to animal testing for medicines that save lives.

Europlex - what about the Tories' lack of support for scrapping the FPTP system which stifles non-centrist politics?

The CBI are no-one's "buddies": they are a group of powerful businessmen who will look after their own interests when consulted on the cap, and rightly so.

Why is that right? We have a duty to help those in need, and to an extent we ought to do this whether or not it's good for businesses.

1) Let me assure you the Tories want to admit more genuine refugees, as Michael Howard reiterated on Question Time recently. It's not "absurd" to impose limits on immigration. It is neccessary. Roy Jenkins, the patron saint of liberalism, agrees.

2) The Tories have shown commitment to envrionmental issues. You haven't, by not searching out the policy document on conservatives.com.

3) They suggested one hell of a lot more than a mere sunset clause for the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Check the facts!

4) Funny. The IFS, the most respected independent financial organisation in the country, has said that the savings can be made. The only reason the Liberals and Labour haven't accepted the plan is that the IFS intervened after they'd published their own waste-cutting plans. They may not have a magic wand, but they do have the James Review to go by.

5) It's not "absurd" to restate cannabis as a Grade B, and not C, drug. It has been linked to epilepsy and brain damage. It's sending a clear message.

6) You're wrong about the private sector. If you have business A and business B competing in the same area, they'll improve quality and lower prices in order to get your custom. The Tories aren't proposing privatising emergency services. It seems you agree with the prinbiple of privatising with competition introduced. You're a natural Tory!

7) The FPTP system doesn't stifle non-centrist parties. It stifles unpopular parties. To be quite frank, I'm not too bothered about the electoral system but the lot we elect!

Why is that right? We have a duty to help those in need, and to an extent we ought to do this whether or not it's good for businesses.

When I say this, I refer not to asylum seekers but to ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. Therefore business should have a very large say in how many are needed.

...and the Tory policy on immigration seems frankly sensible. This is a small and crowded country, and it would seem silly to crowd it more - and I cannot help but feel that since population growth will have to stop at some point, it might as well stop at a reasonable size. In addition to which, frankly it is sad to see the degredation of British culture as it is. Yes, yes, it is a constantly-changing thing, but it seems to be changing very rapidly. I do not say this as a bigoted hater of other cultures - very far from it - but I think what many people forget is... this is awkward to phrase, so forgive the clumsiness... many British people seem to see Britain as The World, some gigantic place, or at least The Centre of the World, the sort of standard place, a hum-drum reality - an attitude that is probably the relic of Empire, or possibly narrow-mindedness caused by lack of foreign travel. But if one steps outside and takes a look from a non-British perspective, one sees that our culture (which many Britsh people never seem to realise even exists - again, the view of one's home country as the sort of base-line of culture, if you see what I mean) is just as quirky and exotic as any other. And just as interesting, and just as valuable. Not better, as some seem to think, just equal. And would seem to me to be a terrible thing to actively promote its erosion.

Hmmm, this seems to have turned into a little rant against our glorious multi-cultural society. Back to immigration... umm, yes, so a limit on immigration seems sensible both from the point of view of population growth, and cultural preservation. That said, all of that applies only to economic migration - refugees are a different matter. I think frankly we are obliged to take such people in, but I was under the impression that the conservative policy was to do with accepting genuine refugees in preference to economic migrants.



Congratulations. This is the second biggest load of hokum I've ever read.

This is a small and crowded country, and it would seem silly to crowd it more - and I cannot help but feel that since population growth will have to stop at some point, it might as well stop at a reasonable size.

A small and crowded country....with vast swathes of empty land.
However, the shortage of affordable housing is a real problem, but it's not caused by immigrants. It is caused by developers building profitable luxury flats instead of decent cheap accommodation. Consecutive Tory and Labour governments have restricted the ability of local councils to build new homes making this worse. Last year only three units of new housing were built for every 1,000 people, the lowest level of new construction since 1945. If every asylum seeker left the country, there would still be a housing crisis.

In addition to which, frankly it is sad to see the degredation of British culture as it is. Yes, yes, it is a constantly-changing thing, but it seems to be changing very rapidly. I do not say this as a bigoted hater of other cultures - BLAH BLAH BLAH (I'm not racist, but...) BLAH BLAH BLAH.

And just as interesting, and just as valuable. Not better, as some seem to think, just equal. And would seem to me to be a terrible thing to actively promote its erosion.

Give me a fucking break. If your "British" culture is so easily destroyed then it clearly doesn't deserve to remain. Immigration isn't destroying your culture. Immigrants are your culture. The point of immigration controls is to exclude people on the basis of where they were born and however you look at it, that it at least nationalist. In the least, they promote racism. Case in point is the current Tory campaign. "It's not racist to impose immigration controls" = I'm not racist, but... Guilt much? The intention may not have been racist but the outcome certainly is.
And there is also the blatent hypocrisy. People who flee Zimbabwe's murderous dictactor are being deported back there because apparently the Home Office has deemed Zimbabwe to be a "safe country". However, go to any Travel Agent and tell them you'd like to travel to Zimbabwe and they'll tell you that the Home Office has issued a warning to UK nationals not to travel there because it's unsafe!

Everyone who makes the effort to travel to this country be it to escape from persecution or war or any reason has the right to stay simply by the fact of their humanity. Who the fuck are we to ensign privileges and designate land to others purely by their place of birth? There people are willing to travel thousands of miles to work 10 ten times harder than you for less money. They have earned their privileges.
But who cares about people who aren't UK citizens, right? We can bomb their homes, kill their families and destroy their livelihood but fuck 'em them if they dare to ask for help.

Existing migration controls probably do not stop anyone who intends to travel from attempting to travel. What they do mean is that a small percentage die because of these controls, a larger percentage fail to get in but try elsewhere (so it probably has no effect on numbers), a much larger percentage end up in hoc to criminal gangs and finally everyone find themselves isolated and insecure when they arrive. This along with the criminalisation leaves them wide open to exploitation which is the motor for controlling wages for indigenous workers in the same areas. Many argue that this last point is why we have migration controls and any study of migrant workers organising in say the US would seem to confirm this.
http://struggle.ws/racism/labour.html

No state, no borders...in that order.

Hello all.

Being a British supporter of the Lib Dems, I am frustrated from voting by the fact that I will be almost two months too young. However, I am getting personally annoyed at this line by Labour - "A vote for Lib Dems will let in the Tories by the back door."

Any Lib Dem supporter who is thinking therefore of tactically voting Labour, I ask them first to read this article from the Independent:

Vote for Lib Dems will not let in the Tories (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634378)

Anyone else getting irritated at the misinformation put out by New Labour? It seems to be quite a good ploy to get those voters who do not want the Conservatives in. Reminds me of a quote from Animal Farm by George Orwell, where the working are kept in line by the threat that the Famer may come back.

In a way, I suppose it's a little promising, because it means that New Labour is seeing the shift to Lib Dem supporters as a serious thing to consider this time around.

Well, itis the principle of American politics.
Repunlicans tell Libertarians that voting third party means democrats win. In fact, very few Libs even vote for their party in Nationstates. Instead most vote Republicans in last election with Bush versus Kerry.

Democrats tell those voting nader that they are letting republicans win. I believe the democrats are right though. Nader spoiled it for Gore.

P.S.

http://www.bluetuliproseread.com/alex/safetytime.gif

Give me a fucking break. If your "British" culture is so easily destroyed then it clearly doesn't deserve to remain. Immigration isn't destroying your culture. Immigrants are your culture. The point of immigration controls is to exclude people on the basis of where they were born and however you look at it, that it at least nationalist. In the least, they promote racism. Case in point is the current Tory campaign. "It's not racist to impose immigration controls" = I'm not racist, but... Guilt much? The intention may not have been racist but the outcome certainly is.
And there is also the blatent hypocrisy. People who flee Zimbabwe's murderous dictactor are being deported back there because apparently the Home Office has deemed Zimbabwe to be a "safe country". However, go to any Travel Agent and tell them you'd like to travel to Zimbabwe and they'll tell you that the Home Office has issued a warning to UK nationals not to travel there because it's unsafe!

Everyone who makes the effort to travel to this country be it to escape from persecution or war or any reason has the right to stay simply by the fact of their humanity. Who the fuck are we to ensign privileges and designate land to others purely by their place of birth? There people are willing to travel thousands of miles to work 10 ten times harder than you for less money. They have earned their privileges.
But who cares about people who aren't UK citizens, right? We can bomb their homes, kill their families and destroy their livelihood but fuck 'em them if they dare to ask for help.


No state, no borders...in that order.

Congratulations. This is the biggest load of hokum I've ever read.

4) You should look at their website where they set out which groups they will consult. The CBI are no-one's "buddies": they are a group of powerful businessmen who will look after their own interests when consulted on the cap, and rightly so. The Geneva Convention, as Blair and Kennedy have conceded, is 50 years out of date. The Tories do not have to withdraw from the EU, just the unsigned EU Constituion which has not even been accepted in Europhile France. I'm not sure your rather convoluted final point is clear enough for a simpleton Tory such as myself.

Claiming something is "out of date" does not justify making the UK the first country (out of 145, including the US and other countries using a quota system) to withdraw to an agreement which ensures no genuine aslyum seeker is sent back to their death. This is after they have proved, with a heavy and objective burden, that they are genuine aslyum seekers.
In addition the UK is bound by EU regulation to process aslyum seekers in accord with this treaty, to withdraw from this regulation means total EU withdrawl as there is not exit strategy. Reprealing it and refusing genuine aslyum seekers would also break the European Convention on Human Rights, a convention whose rulings (decided by the European Court of Human Rights) no UK government has ever ignored. Being in the Council of Europe also requires agreeing to the ECHR, so wihdrawl from one means withdrawl form the other.
Thus the UK would have to leave the EU, European Court and Counciul of Europe just so Howard can refuse genuine asylum seekers.
Don't forget the Geneva Convention 1951 was created out of a worldwide feeling of "never again" following the Holocaust. A feeling Howard does not seem to share.

5) The Tories don't support ID cards in practice. They do think they are a good idea in principle to tackle organised crime and terrorism (concurring with 80% of the British public). I was referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill when I made the comments re. civil liberties.

Even though the Conservatives accepted the bill (with a one year sunset clause, but accepted it never the less)? Hardly principled protectors of civil liberties, letting them be infringed upon for a year then debating them again.

6) You're out of your head on savings! They have earmarked £34 billion savings (most inherited from Labour's Gershon Review). So if you have a cash reserve such as that, of course you can put the money into different things.

Funny really, since the manifesto says "of our £12 billion savings". Of course these are on top of Labour's £21.5bn cuts identified by the aforementioned Gershon Review. So if you twist the figure you can claim that the Tories will make £34bn of cuts. However I am talking about the differences. They will cut £12bn more (as Labour will also follow the Gershon review), yet also increase spending by £30bn more than Labour.

7) Rheab. is very much supported by the Tories. They want 13,000 new drug rehab. places (more than any other party) and will offer first time drug offenders the choice of prison or rehab. under court supervision.

Labour will double the funding for drug rehabilitation. While on crime I wouldn't try Howard with our prisons again.

8) Um, remember the Fagin and flying pig posters?> And if you're so piously concerned on the economy, you should rectify your mistake where you claimed the economy is growing by 0.6%. More like half that.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192
0.6% growth in Q1 2005. 0.7% in Q4 2004. Where you got 0.3% from I don't know, grwoth hasn't been that low since Q4 2002.

9) Privatisation with competition to boot genuinely does drive up standards. The problem with hospital cleaning is that there is no competition. If the competition is there, it works.

Well the wards were clean when the cleaning services were nationalised, there's no competetion there. Competetion always leads to lower quality, as businesses cut corners so overheads are slashes and profit margins fattened. There is competition in the privatised railways, yet traisn still don't run on time. There is competition on the pirvatised buses, yet rural services are still being reduced to two a day at best.

10) Note my usage of the present tense when I said the Tories support the minimum wage. Talking about the past is becoming very tedious to the electorate, as marginal seat polls clearly show. And Labour have NOT been talking about economic policy for the future. They have been harping on about the golden legacy they inherited from the Tories, ignoring the fact that the world market has been the only thing sustaining their economy propped up by mass borrowing and lying about Conservative policy on the economy and healthcare.

Of course the Tories support the minimum wage now, but what did they ever do to help it's implementation? They have simply jumped on a popular bandwagon becuase they have seen how wrong they were.
The "golden" legacy? Labour has been, quite rightly, talking about the improvements it has made to the economy since 1997. They haven't said anything about how good it was in 1996, because it wasn't. Hence we have the lowest inflation since the 60s, and the lowest unenployement for 29 years.
When has anyone lied about Conservative policies on the economy and health? I've seen far more Conservative lies about Labour policies than the other way around.
Please qualify that "the world market has been the only thing sustaining their [Labour's] economy propped up by mass borrowing", when Brown's golden rule of growth meeting borrowing has not yet been broken.

Congratulations. This is the biggest load of hokum I've ever read.

Would you care to elaborate on why you think it's a load of hokum?

1) Let me assure you the Tories want to admit more genuine refugees, as Michael Howard reiterated on Question Time recently. It's not "absurd" to impose limits on immigration. It is neccessary. Roy Jenkins, the patron saint of liberalism, agrees.

When I say this, I refer not to asylum seekers but to ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. Therefore business should have a very large say in how many are needed.

Well I was talking about asylum. What do you have to say about capping that?

2) The Tories have shown commitment to envrionmental issues. You haven't, by not searching out the policy document on conservatives.com.

Every party promises extensive action on the environment. But the conservatives in particular (but most parties really) have shown very little commitment to dealing with climate change, and this suggests that they'd devote little effort to pushing, for instance, US involvement in Kyoto, or agreements above and beyond Kyoto. This is disturbing given the recent developments, especially the suggestion that we might be as little as 10 years from a point of no return.

3) They suggested one hell of a lot more than a mere sunset clause for the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Check the facts!

I know they suggested more compromises, but their position should have been absolute opposition.

4) Funny. The IFS, the most respected independent financial organisation in the country, has said that the savings can be made.

Meanwhile, L-rouge says that the IFS said "the IFS could not determine whether it was realistic for these reductions to be delivered."

5) It's not "absurd" to restate cannabis as a Grade B, and not C, drug. It has been linked to epilepsy and brain damage. It's sending a clear message.

Sending a clear message would simply be telling people the results of the latest research. If I am properly informed, why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to make my own choices? By the way, according to New Scientist, the increasingly prevalent theory is that mental health issues are only related to cannabis use in individuals with a pre-existing predisposition.

6) You're wrong about the private sector. If you have business A and business B competing in the same area, they'll improve quality and lower prices in order to get your custom. The Tories aren't proposing privatising emergency services. It seems you agree with the prinbiple of privatising with competition introduced. You're a natural Tory!

Most public services either don't have space for multiple competitors (e.g. with trainlines you have to pick the one that goes where you need to go, and you can't practically have 2 companies offering 2 trainlines running the same route), or shouldn't (e.g. having hospitals compete is stupid because somebody will eventually have to go to the crappier one when the good one is full - plus once the good one is full it will decline since hospital infection rates increase massively when more than 70% of beds are full. With schools, the proposed solution is to make the popular schools bigger, but this too will most likely decrease their quality, as the level of quality won't necessarily remain constant as the school is expanded). And the issue about value-for-money versus value with a willingness to sacrifice efficiency still hasn't been resolved.

7) The FPTP system doesn't stifle non-centrist parties. It stifles unpopular parties. To be quite frank, I'm not too bothered about the electoral system but the lot we elect!

FPTP means that in many constituencies it really is true that voting is a waste of time - the election comes down to only a fraction of the electorate. It also forces non-centrists to compromise their beliefs and vote for centrist parties to have a hope of making any impact (thus making it appear as if non-centrist parties are unpopular). The non-centrist parties are then forced to either move towards the centre in the hopes of picking up even a couple of votes.

Give me a fucking break. If your "British" culture is so easily destroyed then it clearly doesn't deserve to remain.

Indeed. If conservatives are so big on markets and choice, why not give people access to the widest range of cultures, let them choose what they like, and be happy with the result?

Refused Party Program, it's good to see someone who places their loyalties with humanity and not a nation-state.

"A poll by ICM showed that, if people thought Mr Kennedy's party could win in their constituency, 39 per cent would vote for it, with 31 per cent backing Labour and 26 per cent backing the Tories."

This is what I don't understand. "Gosh the party I want to vote for might not win so I'll vote for someone else instead, thus ensuring that they don't win".

:headbang:

Why can't people just vote for who they want to vote for?

"A poll by ICM showed that, if people thought Mr Kennedy's party could win in their constituency, 39 per cent would vote for it, with 31 per cent backing Labour and 26 per cent backing the Tories."

This is what I don't understand. "Gosh the party I want to vote for might not win so I'll vote for someone else instead, thus ensuring that they don't win".

:headbang:

Why can't people just vote for who they want to vote for?

Because they are afraid they will let an even worse candidate in?

Would you care to elaborate on why you think it's a load of hokum?

Dude, it's safety-time. *shakes head*

http://www.bluetuliproseread.com/alex/safetytime.gif

1) Yes, an international agreement which is now counterproductive can be rejected as being "out of date" legitimately. Other countries haven't left because their asylum policies aren't the same as what the Conservatives propose. Michael Howard has said quite clearly that he would look to arrange a new agreement. Your saintly Blair actually privately supports leaving it (as a leaked memo bears out), but won't just to win an election.

2) I have found no evidence to suggest that the Tories will have to leave the EU to proceed with their immigration policy except an unfounded claim on a UKIP website. Is this the only place the Labour party can get their statistics from these days?

3) Howard's grandmother died in the Holocaust. You are one heck of a sick individual if you are seriously suggesting he wants another one.

4) No, the Tories haven't accepted the ID Cards Bill. It hasn't even put before parliament because of government incompetence in simultaneously arranging an election and 'wash up period' legislation.

5) Wrong on savings too. By 2012, the Conservatives will be spending £34 billion less than Labour, not £30 billion more as you claim. They will, however, spend more than Labour on priority areas.

6) Labour may well double funding for drug rehab., but that makes very little difference on the ground. The Tories want 13,000 more places. That makes a difference. Howard cut crime by 18%, so yeah - it wouldn't be so bad.

7) You quote www.statistics.gov.uk. Note "gov". Ever heard of the politicisation of the civil service?? Try and find some proper figures ie. one's which aren't massaged.

8) Competition NEVER leads to lower quality, because businesses know it's a great way to get your customs. Efficiency does not mean quality drops, far from it. There is not competition in privatised transport (businesses have regionalised monopolies), so you can't cite that as an example. I suggest you visit www.reform.co.uk for more info.

9) The Tories support the minimum wage NOW. I don't care whether they did in the past. That's irrelevant to this election.

10)Yes, golden legacy! The one good thing Labour has done with the economy to lock in stability was to hand over control of interest rates to BoE, something Major was considering and Blair is now planning to dump in favour of the EU. Let's compare trend records, which are the important thing here. Unemployment: now rising, in 1996 falling at its sharpest level for 25 years. Interest rates: going up, then going down. Inflation: rising now, falling then. Tax burden now: highest for 25 years. Thatcher made the tough decisions by changing the UK from a manufacturing base to a service provider. Blair 'N' Brown just take the credit.

11) Let's take a look at some Labour lies about Tory policy: 'Tories want to privatise the NHS', 'Charges for healthcare with the Conservatives', 'Tory sums don't add up', 'Tories would scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners'.

12) Brown is universally recognised as having fiddled borrowing figures. He has had his figures wrong on borrowing on every occasion.

Now, the next set:

1) It's legitimate to cap asylum as it is legitimiate to cap immigration too: in the interests of pure logistics. There is not the space and the services to cope. But before you launch into a rant, remember that the Tories are offering asylum seekers the best deal of all three of the parties.

2) I suggest you actually look at the Tory environment policy document before making unfounded claims about it.

3) Absoloute opposition to a bill is not productive. The Tories suggested fundamental changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, whilst the Lib Dems sat on their arses and called it "principled opposition".

4) L-rouge is wrong about Conservative spending plans, as I have proved earlier.

5) Many people are not as informed as you about cannabis. It would therefore be wrong for government to allow citizens to make choices without them knowing - or crucially, caring (no matter how much research you publish) - about the consequences of their actions.

6) Visit www.reform.co.uk before spouting all that rubbish about the demerits of the private sector.

I hope this helps those still vehemently opposed to sensible Conservative thinking.

"A poll by ICM showed that, if people thought Mr Kennedy's party could win in their constituency, 39 per cent would vote for it, with 31 per cent backing Labour and 26 per cent backing the Tories."

This is what I don't understand. "Gosh the party I want to vote for might not win so I'll vote for someone else instead, thus ensuring that they don't win".

:headbang:

Why can't people just vote for who they want to vote for?

Not true. The poll asked people who were THINKING (JUST THINKING) of voting Lib Dem. Even with those results, they wouldn't win a majority and barely scrape into opposition. It's Liberal Democrat propaganda.

8) Competition NEVER leads to lower quality, because businesses know it's a great way to get your customs. Efficiency does not mean quality drops, far from it. There is not competition in privatised transport (businesses have regionalised monopolies), so you can't cite that as an example. I suggest you visit www.reform.co.uk for more info.

My point about transport was precisely that there are monopolies, so you can't even get the competition which supposedly improves marketised services. And I would beg to differ over quality - privatised services frequently sacrifice quality for efficiency, cutting corners wherever practicable.

1) It's legitimate to cap asylum as it is legitimiate to cap immigration too: in the interests of pure logistics. There is not the space and the services to cope. But before you launch into a rant, remember that the Tories are offering asylum seekers the best deal of all three of the parties.

I still doubt this claim that asylum seekers would get a better deal: I have not heard anything of the sort, and it is completely at odds with the idea of capping asylum. I'd like to know where you got it. And as for resources - look at the countries these people are fleeing from, then tell me we don't have the resources to support them. As long as we perpetuate economic injustices which create and sustain poverty abroad, and as long as we remain allied to oppressive regimes (just as long as they help us out in the "war on terror" or are useful trading partners - see Uzbekistan for starters), we have a responsibility to the people harmed by those actions.

2) I suggest you actually look at the Tory environment policy document before making unfounded claims about it.

They want to decrease taxes on low emissions cars, incentivise energy efficiency in homes, raise awareness by doing stuff like visibly linking air travel taxes to pollution, and say some nice things about renewable energy and CHP. This seems in substantial part reliant on hoping individuals will make green choices if the costs are decreased somewhat - which is nowhere near radical enough given the threat we face. Any real overhauls they propose seem unlikely to come to fruition, given how little attention they're paying to the issue - all of 2 short paragraphs in their entire manifesto are devoted to climate change and our energy sources, and it does not even begin to feature in their main pledges.

3) Absoloute opposition to a bill is not productive. The Tories suggested fundamental changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, whilst the Lib Dems sat on their arses and called it "principled opposition".

If absolute opposition is unproductive because of the size of labour's
majority, that's another argument for replacing FPTP.

None of the changes suggested alter the fact that this bill was about enforcing sentences for being suspected of planning (or even just encouraging) terrorist acts, which is still plain wrong.

There was probably substantial chance of Labour rebellion on this, had the Tories and Liberals said "We're making a principled stand against this abhorrent piece of legislation, and we encourage all principled Labour MPs to come join us". And had they lost, they could have run the election campaign promising to right the gross infringement on civil liberties.

4) L-rouge is wrong about Conservative spending plans, as I have proved earlier.

So s/he was lying with the quote from the IFS saying "the IFS could not determine whether it was realistic for these reductions to be delivered"?

5) Many people are not as informed as you about cannabis. It would therefore be wrong for government to allow citizens to make choices without them knowing - or crucially, caring (no matter how much research you publish) - about the consequences of their actions.

Make the information widely available, and accompany sales with this information (i.e. labelling). Then people can make an informed decision on whether they want to check the risks first.

6) Visit www.reform.co.uk before spouting all that rubbish about the demerits of the private sector.

I will take a look there tomorrow as I must go now. But from the briefest of glances, it looks to be a pro-privatisation think tank - hardly the most impartial of sources. I don't believe that it is rubbish to state that "choice" leads to some people being stuck with the options nobody else wanted, or that private sector "efficiency" means cutting corners on quality to save cash.

4) L-rouge is wrong about Conservative spending plans, as I have proved earlier.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-18169-1566020-18169,00.html

And incase you don't want to read it all...


Carl Emmerson, deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that the Tories could make their planned £4 billion in tax cuts if they met their plans to cut spending. However, the IFS could not determine whether it was realistic for these reductions to be delivered. "It's very hard to say with any authority," Mr Emmerson said.


On the point about immigration, even the Financial Times has deemed that...

Howard’s "dishonest" arguments over asylum, saying a cap would be "indefensible" if the UK faced a sudden refugee crisis, it welcomed the point system. Rather than abandoning the UN refugee convention, the paper called for an international review of the out-of-date agreement.


It is also interesting to note that there is no problem with a massive influx of immigrants, as the Conservative Party would have us believe.


However, according to the FT report, the number of asylum seekers in developed Countries fell sharply last year - with the figures for the UK back to those of the mid-1980s - and Britain is only near the middle of the table amongst the 25 European Countries for the number of refugees it takes as a percentage of the Country's total population.

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_03_02/uk/more_uk_immigration_restrictions.htm

A very interesting point about local politics is how Michael Howard is working out costs spent by the present Government. Having just sent out a letter telling people in Dorset that they are paying...

"Chaotic asylum system has cost Poole Council and Dorset County Council £1,926,240 since 1997 - money that could have been spent on essential local services. No wonder a typical hardworking family in a Band D property in Poole and Dorset now pays £595.57 more on their council tax than they did in 1997."

However, these fail to take into account that the actual cost to the region in payments for immigrants and asylum seekers was £1000. All costs to local councils are re-imbursed, so to make that link is a blatant lie, something Howard said he woulldn't do and blames Blair all the time of doing.

Conservative policy on the Environment (its basic, please say if I miss anything. I have a feeling that you may not know as you keep saying that its all there and look it up).
"Better leadership" on Kyoto targets; make fly-tipping arrestable offence; encourage tidal, wave and offshore wind power; use tax system to make greenest fuels cheaper; stop greenbelt building.

The problem with their policy is that there is nothing about increasing recycling, something basic that improves the environment comparatively cheaply. They say they will provide better leadership on Kyoto, but don't say how. Their basic policy throughout this election seems to be "we'll do things better, but don't ask us yet because we're not sure".
The only policies they seem to be sure on are immigration and cutting taxes and expenditure, but even their tax reductions are all that great and by cutting expenditure it means that less money goes into public services, so how can they improve?

1) Yes, an international agreement which is now counterproductive can be rejected as being "out of date" legitimately. Other countries haven't left because their asylum policies aren't the same as what the Conservatives propose. Michael Howard has said quite clearly that he would look to arrange a new agreement. Your saintly Blair actually privately supports leaving it (as a leaked memo bears out), but won't just to win an election.

They are very similar. Many countries have quotas, yet don't need to leave the Geneva Convention. As I said all the Geneva Convention does is ensure people aren't sent back to their deaths, yet the Conservtaives will repeal it.

2) I have found no evidence to suggest that the Tories will have to leave the EU to proceed with their immigration policy except an unfounded claim on a UKIP website. Is this the only place the Labour party can get their statistics from these days?

No, I'm citing an article by Geoffery Robertson QC, who wrote a book on Global Justice and whom I trust to know about EU law. Alternatively look up the laws yourself.

3) Howard's grandmother died in the Holocaust. You are one heck of a sick individual if you are seriously suggesting he wants another one.

I'm saying he wants to repeal a convention which was designed to prevent another one. His grandmother does not stop him being racist. I ahppen to think he is "one heck of a sick individual" for wnating to refuse genuine asylum seekers who could be runing from similar tyranny.

5) Wrong on savings too. By 2012, the Conservatives will be spending £34 billion less than Labour, not £30 billion more as you claim. They will, however, spend more than Labour on priority areas.

No, they will both cut £21.5bn. The Tories will cut a further £12bn. This further £12bn has been earmakered for tax cuts and reduced borrowing. They will then, on top of this, increase spending above Labour levels by about £30bn.

6) Labour may well double funding for drug rehab., but that makes very little difference on the ground. The Tories want 13,000 more places. That makes a difference. Howard cut crime by 18%, so yeah - it wouldn't be so bad.

Howard also overcrowded prisons until riots broke out, then passed the buck and forced one of his subordinates to resign instead of himself. Let's ignore the poll tax he also helped bring in.

7) You quote www.statistics.gov.uk. Note "gov". Ever heard of the politicisation of the civil service?? Try and find some proper figures ie. one's which aren't massaged.

Well the BBC find 0.6% acceptable. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4471611.stm

8) Competition NEVER leads to lower quality, because businesses know it's a great way to get your customs. Efficiency does not mean quality drops, far from it. There is not competition in privatised transport (businesses have regionalised monopolies), so you can't cite that as an example. I suggest you visit www.reform.co.uk for more info.

Why then do we have some cheap, low quality goods and other expensive, high quality ones? Competetion can drive quality down. Hence the cleaning systems (although you can claim no competetion, but there can be just no one has decided to challenge to private company). With transport are you saying privatisation doesn't work?
www.reform.co.uk? Now who's citing bias sources?

9) The Tories support the minimum wage NOW. I don't care whether they did in the past. That's irrelevant to this election.

Of course they support it now. If what "they did in the past" is so irrelevant, why does your party insist on bring up the issue of Blair, Iraq and trust when it happened in "the past".

10)Yes, golden legacy! The one good thing Labour has done with the economy to lock in stability was to hand over control of interest rates to BoE, something Major was considering and Blair is now planning to dump in favour of the EU. Let's compare trend records, which are the important thing here. Unemployment: now rising, in 1996 falling at its sharpest level for 25 years. Interest rates: going up, then going down. Inflation: rising now, falling then. Tax burden now: highest for 25 years. Thatcher made the tough decisions by changing the UK from a manufacturing base to a service provider. Blair 'N' Brown just take the credit.

So why was there no economic imporvement for major to take credit for between 1991 and 1996. If your party can be so trusted with the economy why did they join the ERM, causing Black Wednesday?
Of course the tax budren is higher, as it would be under Howard (he ahs admitted this several times). It's called growth, and the tax burden always grows. Taxation is at its lowest level since Thatcher.
Aren't these trend records "in the past" and "irrelevant to this election."?

11) Let's take a look at some Labour lies about Tory policy: 'Tories want to privatise the NHS', 'Charges for healthcare with the Conservatives', 'Tory sums don't add up', 'Tories would scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners'.

Tory sums really don't add up. The Tories are in favour of privatising the NHS through PFI, they have already managed the cleaning services.

12) Brown is universally recognised as having fiddled borrowing figures. He has had his figures wrong on borrowing on every occasion.

You can't just blame "fiddling" and "massaging" whenever figures don't go your way. The fact is Britain has been made the worl's fourth largets economy under this government, which is not a bad thing. Brown is admired economically, not seen as a phony. His estiamtes on grwoth have repeatedly proved the financial 'experts' wrong, and he hasn't broken his Golden Rule!

Well done whoever started this thread. I also find it really damned annoying.

I will vote for Lib Dems because although they are unlikely to win (too many people saying "They won't get in, Tories are worse than Labour even though they're both a bit Thatcherite etc" they may end up opposition. Which would galvanise them into becoming a REAL opposition.

"A poll by ICM showed that, if people thought Mr Kennedy's party could win in their constituency, 39 per cent would vote for it, with 31 per cent backing Labour and 26 per cent backing the Tories."

This is what I don't understand. "Gosh the party I want to vote for might not win so I'll vote for someone else instead, thus ensuring that they don't win".

:headbang:

Why can't people just vote for who they want to vote for?

Because of the voting system - PR would enable such people to have their say [i.e. they would put Labour as No.1 thus ensuring no tories, and LibDem as No.2 thus contributing towards a LibDem MP - that won't make sense if you aren't familiar with PR]. I'm one of the 'lucky' ones in that my adopted constituency has a guaranteed Labour or LibDem MP - I can safely vote LibDem, and might even get a LibDem MP.

Oh, and one more complaint about the Tories' support for private services. Their policy to give cash to parents to fund private education for their kids will simply give the private schools even more cash with which they can tempt even more skilled teachers away from the state sector, leaving the rest of us with poorer quality teachers and poorer quality educations.

1) Once again, can I guide you to www.reform.co.uk, which makes an excellent case for privatisation.

2) Asylum seekers would get a better deal under the Tories. Check the facts if you're not sure. The Conservatives published an Action on Poverty document which deals with tackling the conditions you describe. And re. your resources point: we are not a communist bordello intent on rapidly decreasing our living standards for others. However mean that may sound.

3) Of course only a small amount will be allocuated to climate change in a manifesto - it's not high on the list of public priorities, rightly or wrongly. But there is the rather large policy document on the environment which sets out pragmatic environmental policies.

4) The Prevention of Terrorism Act does NOT impose sentences on those suspected of involvement in terrorist atrocities. The 'badness' of Absoloute opposition is entirely nothing to do with the size of Labour's majority. if you want a party which concentrates not on co-operating to make this country better but on fighting a half-decent election campaign, don't vote Tory.

5) Do you seriously think a lotta irresponsible people will heed any publication of health advice re. cannabis??

6) L-rouge fails to mention that the IFS have privately sanctioned the delivery aspect of Tory spending plans.

7) Um, immigration has TRIPLED under Labour and is now at an extraordinarily high level.

8) Government pays the cost of the increased burden on publci services and tax throuhg immigration. This cost comes out of your taxes. So the point Howard makes is legitimate, if a little around-the-houses.

9) I don't think you've read the Geneva Convention. You claim that "all the Geneva Convention does is ensure people aren't sent back to their deaths". Wrong. Read it.

10) Why don't you tell me what party Geoffrey Robertson, who is not an expert on EU Law, supports. I thinky you'll be surprised.

11) Of course Howard doesn't want to refuse genuine asylum seekers. The fact is only 2 in 10 applicants are genuine. He will admit MORE asylum seekers than Labour and the Liberals.

12) No, they will NOT increase spending by £30 billion above Labour. It's actually £34 billion below Labour. Have a look at their spending plans.

13) Howard still cut crime by 18%. Never been done before or since.

14) I never said Reform was unbiased. I just suggest you read its positive case for privatisation before condeming it altogether in that typically New Labour way.

15) Of course trust in Blair is relevant to this election. Whether the Tories supported the minimum wage years ago is not.

16) The Labour party were the most ardent supporters of ERM. If you look at the quarters of "sustained economic growth" Brown harps on about, you'll find a large proportion comes under the Conservatives. The figures I talk about measures tax burden with regard to growth, and so eliminates the latter. So let's have no excuses about the tax burden being the highest for 25 years, and less shabby attacks on the decent Tory economic record.

17) Labour support PFI too! Does that mean they're privatising the health service?? Come on. Of course Tory sums add up: name me one that doesn't.

18) But if you fiddle figures, you can meet any rule you want. And the only thing Brown has "beaten" the independent experts on is growth.

The last person whose posts I have replied to is clearly willing to peddle lies and deceit and masquerade it as fact. Typical New Labour. Rather than believing everything their website says, go out and check the facts.

9) I don't think you've read the Geneva Convention. You claim that "all the Geneva Convention does is ensure people aren't sent back to their deaths". Wrong. Read it.

Well there are many articles regarding what the refugee has an obligation to do, and that the contracting state must treat them the same as any other immigrant.

I find nothing wrong with "No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.", which is the main duty of the states which agree to it. Other clauses regard fair treatment of said refugees.
In addition "At the time of signature, ratification or accession, any State may make reservations to articles of the Convention other than to Articles 1, 3, 4, 16(1), 33, 36-46 inclusive." Article 1 defines a refugee, article 3 makes discrimination against them illegal, article 4 allows freedom of religion, article 16(1) allows access to courts to plead thier case or defend themselves, article 33 prohibits explusion of genuine refugees, articles 36-46 redard apllication. Now what there is there for the Tories to disagree with?

And finally there is not need to withdraw and draw up a new convention, as "Any Contracting State may request revision of this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.", so it can be revised.

Care to point to the articles which either allow illegal immigrants to stay or which are out of date?

Text of the Geneva Convention (1951) (http://www.ufsia.ac.be/~dvanheul/migration/genconv.html)

10) Why don't you tell me what party Geoffrey Robertson, who is not an expert on EU Law, supports. I thinky you'll be surprised.

I trust a QC more than Michael Howard to know about law. After all if I was in court I would rather a judge heard my case than Tony Blair.

11) Of course Howard doesn't want to refuse genuine asylum seekers. The fact is only 2 in 10 applicants are genuine. He will admit MORE asylum seekers than Labour and the Liberals.

How? How, by resitricting the number of aslyum seekers, will more be let in?

12) No, they will NOT increase spending by £30 billion above Labour. It's actually £34 billion below Labour. Have a look at their spending plans.

I have. Both parties have identified the same £21.5bn savings. Labour has included them in their spending plans. The Tories have taken these plans, and sai they will increase spending by £1.4bn on police, £1.2bn on transport, £2.7bn on defence, £6.3bn on education, and £18.6bn on health (making a total increase of £30.2bn) above Labour's spending. They have identified £12bn extra savings, but have spent these on tax cuts and reduced borrowing.
So they only have £22bn for spending increases, ignoring that they are double spending Labour savings, when they have promised a £30bn increase. That ingored the fact that £22bn of their savings have already beeen factored into Labour's plans, so that money has effectively been spent in the plans where the tories promise increases.

13) Howard still cut crime by 18%. Never been done before or since.

The BBC happens to believe "Parties would be well advised not to take too much credit for falling crime levels" ( Election issues: Law and order (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4402299.stm)). Howard can be blamed for prison riots which caused such oproar resignations were forced.

14) I never said Reform was unbiased. I just suggest you read its positive case for privatisation before condeming it altogether in that typically New Labour way.

I am not New Labour, as they are quite keen on privatisation. I have heard the positive case for privatisation, yet when it has been implemented workers wages have often fallen singificantly while the rich get richer.

15) Of course trust in Blair is relevant to this election. Whether the Tories supported the minimum wage years ago is not.

If you want to take credit for supporting it, you should be prepared to defend your parties old stance.

16) The Labour party were the most ardent supporters of ERM. If you look at the quarters of "sustained economic growth" Brown harps on about, you'll find a large proportion comes under the Conservatives. The figures I talk about measures tax burden with regard to growth, and so eliminates the latter. So let's have no excuses about the tax burden being the highest for 25 years, and less shabby attacks on the decent Tory economic record.

Labour may have supported the ERM, but the Tories went into it. The Tories also supported the Iraq war, but you see fit to blame Labour for it.
The Tory economic record was not decent. Spiralling unemployement and recession, hence why they were so soundly thrashed in 1997. People had had enough of the Conservative government, and economics are always important here.
If you want to argue economics, why not Check the facts (http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/quote.jsp?id=50). While it can be conceded "some" of the economic position is due to the previous government, you cannot claim that eight years of prosperity is all due to Major and Thatcher.

17) Labour support PFI too! Does that mean they're privatising the health service?? Come on. Of course Tory sums add up: name me one that doesn't.

I have tried to explain to you how Tory sum's do not add up, but you seem insistent on double spending £22bn.

To be very simple:
Conservative spending increases on Labour plans= £30.2bn
Conservative tax cuts = £4bn
Conservative borrowing reduction = £8bn
Total Conservative spending increases = £42.2bn

Conservative cuts in line with Labour plans = £22bn
Conservative cuts on top of Labour plans = £12bn
Total Tory cuts (if you believe them) = £34bn
Total real Tory cuts = £12bn

Thus the Tories are between £8bn and £30bn short, dependent on whether you accept that Labour will also cut £22bn.

18) But if you fiddle figures, you can meet any rule you want. And the only thing Brown has "beaten" the independent experts on is growth.

Yes, he has been right on growth and ensured it met his borrowing. Hence he has not broken his Golden Rule and has proved more reliable on growth than the experts.

The last person whose posts I have replied to is clearly willing to peddle lies and deceit and masquerade it as fact. Typical New Labour. Rather than believing everything their website says, go out and check the facts.

Actually I don't believe anything New Labour says, but consulting other sources (BBC, Channel 4, text of the Geneva Convention, Conservative Party manifesto) I have made my own judgements about Tory policy. I have peddled no lies, and am not a supporter of New Labour (I loathe New Labour almost as much as the Tories).

The Liberal Democrats are really quite laughable. The only reason they are even getting an increased vote is because disheartened socialists and anti war protestors have woken up to find themselves in bed with Blair who, in certain ways, is a neo-Thatcherite. As soon as Blair goes, the Lib Dems will be back on their usual score of about 18%.

To claim themselves as "The Real Opposition" is quite absurd and I would not vote for them for these reasons:

1) Kennedy's parliamentary skills are lacklustre at best. Howard and Blair are good to watch because they both make good arguments and use rhetoric effectively whereas Kennedy blathers on in that monotone Scottish voice, very rarely making Tony Blair even break a sweat. The same can be said for Kennedy's front benchers, all of whom never speak. The only one I came name off the top of my head is Sir Menzies Campbell.

2) Legalising cannabis is not the answer. Firstly cannabis has been linked for many years with mental illnesses. Secondly cannabis will become the start of a slippery slope for some people as they push themselves further and further onwards into harder drugs. The only circumstance in which I would possibly consider legalising cannabis is to allow it from prescription from a doctor, as it can relieve the pain for some eldery patients.

3) Having the taxpayer's take 100% of student fees is absurd and quite frankly unfair on the overburdened tax payer. I am a university student myself but I would rather pay my fees than foist my problems selfishly onto the population at large. Making students pay their fees means that firstly only the ones who trully wish to do their course will proceed and secondly it prepares them for the outside world by giving them fiscal responsibilites with which to deal with. Anyway the system of loans and of grants is perfectly adequate.

4) Their stance over the Iraq war is quite obviously one of political conveinance unlike the Tories who believe (correctly) that the war was an unfortunate necessity and fight for that belief. It still amazes me that people oppose a war against one of the world's most sickening and despotic tyrants who destablised his own country and the Middle East and frequently disobeyed the UN. However in my opinion, I think we should have gone after Zimbabwe instead, a far more anti British and nasty regime.

5) 50% income tax for those who earn over £100,000 - yes, you go Mr. Kennedy attacking those evil burgeoisie <sigh>

6) Local Council Tax is to be replaced with local Income Tax. The difference - none really, apart from the name and the fact that it will cost the average family far more in tax than all of Labour's council tax hikes. To claim they are going to abolition Council Tax is laughable - they simply intend to replace with a more socialist version.

7) Making the House of Lords an elected body would just make them another layer of scheming, career smart politicans - at the moment the HoL is the one arm of the British legislature with any common sense.

8) None of their members has any experience in government - having experience in local government is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I will be voting Conservative on 5/5/05 but I need not bother - the Conservatives in my constieuency (Sutton Coldfield) have a majority of over 10,000. Yay!

I was halfway through typing another actually thought-through defence of Tory policy, when I realised that you're not going to change your mind so there's very little point. However, I will leave you with the imperative command to actually look up Conservative spending policy. You will find they plan to spend LESS than Labour.

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=policy.listing.page

The value for money and spending plan is about a quarter of the way down. Have fun being proved wrong!

Ta ra.

Funny. That identified £12bn extra savings, the exact number alreayd spent bu the Tories. Even if they are unique, still £12bn behind. Not that you'll see this, blinded by party propaganda.

However if you want to use party stuff, try reading the Labour manifesto. Or look at the choice (http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=thechoice) we all have. You'll find only the Labour party can guarentee improved services, not the Tories.

Hello English people,

Here's something that maybe sums up your parliament election?

http://www.viralgods.com/clips/wasntme/

or maybe not?

Funny. That identified £12bn extra savings, the exact number alreayd spent bu the Tories. Even if they are unique, still £12bn behind. Not that you'll see this, blinded by party propaganda.

However if you want to use party stuff, try reading the Labour manifesto. Or look at the choice (http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=thechoice) we all have. You'll find only the Labour party can guarentee improved services, not the Tories.

I know you find this all very hard to understand so let me explain in the most basic terms possible. Being a student of Politics and Economics at Cambridge, I trust you will accept what I say as fact.

The Tories have identified £12 billion of savings over and above Labour's waste-cutting plans (the Gershon Review). The Conservatives plan to use £8 billion of that to reduce the level of borrowing, and £4 billion to cut a selection of taxes/reward saving. That is the £12 billion spent.

The Conservatives will spend the same as Labour on education, health, international development and transport. They will spend slightly more than Labour on pensions, cutting crime and defence.

They will spend LESS - I repeat, LESS - on everything else, to the tune of £34 billion less by 2012. This will reduce the share of GDP spent by government in real terms, and comparative to Labour plans. As you are such a convenient supporter of New Labour propaganda (though you deny this, you have conceded it in your last post), you must remember the widely dicredited "£34 billion Tory cuts". The vast majority of economic commentators pointed out that the £34 billion was a slowdown in spending rather than cuts.

Either you accept the New Labour line that Tories will reduce spending by £34 billion (which is true, as I and the Conservative party have said), or you distance yourself even further from the mainstream.

I'm voting LibDems mainly on that alone pretty much, and raising tax a bit on the highest 1% of earners.



Raising a bit?!?!?! A 50% Tax is a bit?!?! (compared to a 22.5% national average)

If I had seen this a few weeks ago I would have questioned the 1% figure too, but now I would not be so sure now as I have looked at the average earnings of my friends, and many of them were somewhat lower than expected.

Sorry if this has been bought up already, but I was just reading through the thread and found this slight understatement and had to point it out.


I currently believe that no party has a leader suitable for running this country, but we have to pick someone. The swing necessary to topple the Labour rule is quite significant (Last I knew they had a 150+ seat advantage) yet every vote counts. If your Bristish and have a vote to cast, do it for who you feel right, or who ever benefits you most. Just please ensure that you check all the major parties policies before doing so. I hate nothing more than a population blinded by political propaganda and fake promises.

I sway on topic greatly here to put forward another point.
Take a sports star, one of the best the country has ever seen. They turn the country's reputation for the sport around, they win nearly everything. But after a 10 year career at the top, the inevitable occurs and they lose form, they spend 2 years playing badly, and eventually get thrown off the team. What part of that sportsman's career would you remember most?
Now think about Thatcher that I have seen attacked in this thread and others. She did so much good for the country in the 10 years she was 'sane', yet all people remember is the 2 years of bad (admitted they were awful).
I know it is not the best comparison I could have come up with, but it is all I could think of when this was written. I will probably get flamed for saying that, but hey, they are my views, and if you can't handle them, don't read them.

I will be voting Conservative on 5/5/05 but I need not bother - the Conservatives in my constieuency (Sutton Coldfield) have a majority of over 10,000. Yay!



Leatherhead + Fetcham East (just down the road from you) is in the Torie's bag too :)
Though the Lib Dems seem to be putting up a good fight for it

They will spend LESS - I repeat, LESS - on everything else, to the tune of £34 billion less by 2012.

So they will cut (or reduce, however you want to phrase it) spending. My point all along.

Hm, no. I dissagree...I am also too young to vote in the General election. (17)

However, The Independant newspaper crap you came out with is a bunch of hypocritical garbage. THEY are persuading their voters to vote TACTICALLY.

Between Libs & Tory's wouldn't you believe...


So, does that make sense now? For once, I'd like to see someone present me with some logic - as opposed to broadsheet media.


You see, no matter WHAT party you vote for, the math is simple. If you reside in a Key Marginal seat, that Labour holds, with a Tory candidate second within a couple of thousand votes...

And you either a) don't vote or b) vote liberal and you were a former Labour voter... of course you are going to let the Tories in *by the back door*

Because, In Simple terms = Labour loose votes to partys that won't gain a scrap of power. Conservatives don't loose or gain... and therefore, New Tory Candidate.


As for Kennedy refuting this... *Slaps head* HE WANTS HIS PARTY TO GAIN VOTES! HE DOESN'T CARE IF IT'S A TORY GVT OR A LABOUR ONE COME FRIDAY; LIB DEM WON'T GET IN ANYWAY!! HE JUST WANTS TO INCREASE LIB SEATS AND SUBESEQUENTLY KEEP HIS JOB!!


Gr, this is annoying me.

Lol!


Being a student of Politics and Economics at Cambridge, I trust you will accept what I say as fact.


And for what reason? Cambridge doesn't make you God, dear. It doesn't make you credible atall either.

For example, being such a prestigious University; it is targeted by students in the private sector - obviously. And judging by your self-centred, and arrogant attitude, I'm inclined to believe that you belonged in that catagory.

Therefore, we can all see why you support the party you do! I bet you find them absolutely 'spiffing' eh?

Being a student of Politics and Economics at Cambridge, I trust you will accept what I say as fact.


Maybe we should also take Blair's opinions as facts then too :p

2) Asylum seekers would get a better deal under the Tories. Check the facts if you're not sure. The Conservatives published an Action on Poverty document which deals with tackling the conditions you describe. And re. your resources point: we are not a communist bordello intent on rapidly decreasing our living standards for others. However mean that may sound.

The Action on Poverty document promised to equal Labour's aid spending, then spouted some fairly standard stuff about prioritising sensibly and dealing with poor governance. It was too biased towards free trade, with little concession to fair trade.

As to asylum seekers - I checked the immigration section of the Tory manifesto and saw nothing that would benefit asylum seekers. I simply don't believe you have anything with which to back this claim, especially since capping asylum is completely incongruent with giving those fleeing oppression a better deal.

3) Of course only a small amount will be allocuated to climate change in a manifesto - it's not high on the list of public priorities, rightly or wrongly. But there is the rather large policy document on the environment which sets out pragmatic environmental policies.

The environmental policies are fairly weak, and the only reason it's not a public priority is because nobody seems to be making an effort to demonstrate to the public what's going on. If a party emphasised recent scientific findings like the possibility that we will reach the point of no return in as little as 10 years, public opinion might begin to change. After all, in January, the polls showed immigration as a fairly low priority, but by February/March it was the topic most frequently placed by those polled as their most important issue. The Tories managed to change opinions on that, and they didn't even have a good weight of hard science to back them up.

4) The Prevention of Terrorism Act does NOT impose sentences on those suspected of involvement in terrorist atrocities.

(1) The Secretary of State may make a control order against an individual if he-

(a) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; and
(b) considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to make a control order imposing obligations on that individual.

(9) For the purposes of this Act involvement in terrorism-related activity is any one or more of the following-

(a) the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;
(b) conduct which facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;
(c) conduct which gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so;
(d) conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity;

Particularly disturbing is (9) (c) - control orders for as little as "encouragement"!

The 'badness' of Absoloute opposition is entirely nothing to do with the size of Labour's majority. if you want a party which concentrates not on co-operating to make this country better but on fighting a half-decent election campaign, don't vote Tory.

I don't want a party which co-operates in the removal of fundamental liberties.

5) Do you seriously think a lotta irresponsible people will heed any publication of health advice re. cannabis??

If the information is there, they can decide whether or not they want to make an informed decision.

6) L-rouge fails to mention that the IFS have privately sanctioned the delivery aspect of Tory spending plans.

So is this quote a fabrication?


the IFS could not determine whether it was realistic for these reductions to be delivered

7) Um, immigration has TRIPLED under Labour and is now at an extraordinarily high level.

I believe your party's official accusation is that it doubled. And yet we're still profiting from it, economically, demographically, and culturally.

8) Government pays the cost of the increased burden on publci services and tax throuhg immigration. This cost comes out of your taxes. So the point Howard makes is legitimate, if a little around-the-houses.

Immigrants pay tax too. As do the businesses they stimulate as consumers and employees.

If you want to lessen the burden, remove the remaining restrictions that exist on them working - at present, there are qualified immigrant doctors who are not allowed to work in the NHS, instead they are waiting tables etc.

The last person whose posts I have replied to is clearly willing to peddle lies and deceit and masquerade it as fact. Typical New Labour. Rather than believing everything their website says, go out and check the facts.

If you're referring to me, I'd like to know where you think I've lied, and where you got the idea that I'm pro-New Labour? I haven't used their website to inform my opinions, and I am quite unwilling to support them. I just find the Tories even more objectionable.

2) Legalising cannabis is not the answer. Firstly cannabis has been linked for many years with mental illnesses. Secondly cannabis will become the start of a slippery slope for some people as they push themselves further and further onwards into harder drugs. The only circumstance in which I would possibly consider legalising cannabis is to allow it from prescription from a doctor, as it can relieve the pain for some eldery patients.

First, the growing scientific consensus is that cannabis is only linked to mental problems in people who already have a predisposition.

Second, if you inform people of the risks of a drug, and they decide that they would prefer to use the drug despite the risks, to prohibit its use is to say to individuals that they can't set their own priorities in life, as the government knows better. If an individual values enjoyment more than their health, for the state to stop them making the choice is to declare that they do not have full rights over their own body, and constitutes a claim by the state on at least partial ownership of the citizen's body.

Ramir, the only way to deal with this kind of problem is to abolish FPTP. We can hardly hope for that to happen if we deny all power to the Lib Dems, who, however unsatisfactory they may be, are the only major party which would do such a thing.

The rationale behind voting Lib Dem despite the risks is that a Tory victory is unlikely, and if we slash labour's majority, Blair will have more trouble ignoring the Lib Dems and the leftist wing of his own party.