Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Ah the weather! Must be one of the most important considerations for many people.




:D

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Controlled my arse!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...572533,00.html

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

You are still looking at the net change in overall population and refusing to consider the rise/fall of local populations.

If anything is clear, it's that you're linking to pages that you haven't read! Or at least not read without your reading being informed by your own Party affiliation.

I did read the page you linked to, and it said exactly what I summarised it as saying: that the Lib Dem plans add up, unless certain circumstances they have assumed turn out not to occur, in which case there will be trouble. I added to that a point that I note you have completely ignored, and that is when Brown continually makes growth forecasts that economists in general consider to be too optimistic, you don't get up and accuse him of being 'vague' in the same way as you accuse the Lib Dems of being vague. Yet, he is doing exactly what they are doing - making plans based on an assumed set of future circumstances.

You make it out as if Labour has had one unfortunate spell of unelectbility in its entire existence, when the fact is that until this year no Labour Government had ever survived two full terms in office. Inability to manage the country has been fundamental to the character of the Labour party for a lot longer than the period from 1979 to 1997. It's only since 1997, when (and I make the point again) Labour finally agreed that Thatcher's reforms were there to stay, that Labour has found itself to be re-electable. Funny, that.

Yes, redistribution, something not far from the lips of a great many backbenchers. You and I both know that the New Labour project is a scam held in place only by the sheer force of personality of a few people at the top of the heirarchy. I am looking forward to seeing what happens when Blair is shown to be damaged goods on May 5, and when Brown - who IIRC actually used the word 'redistribution' in defence of his last budget - gets into Number 10. I predict a lot more noise from a lot of lefties who have been kept quiet for rather a long time now.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Are the Tory's plans going to make a lot of difference on a local scale? After all one they are in you can hardly stop people congregating. Look at Leicester it has a large Asian community ((very large indeed) and Brixton has a large Black community. Immigrants have always tried to create a community, I guess it helps them integrate. Perhaps the Tory's want to limit it to one immigrant per street throughout the country, after all that'll spread the load.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

I don't think anyone is trying to stop 'congregating' from happening. It's only human nature to stick with what's familiar when you find yourself in an alien context, and given the hostility towards immigrants that has been shown in this country in the past you can hardly blame them.

But, if you follow through a commitment to reduce the overall number of people coming in, inevitably there will be fewer people ariving even in those areas where there are large immigrant communities.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Well, looks like I shall have to change my vote in the poll. Suddenly faced with making a choice between deciding who to vote for and having a couple of weeks in the Canaries. Guess which choice I made? :D

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Clarify this, give examples.


Disagree there that's not a fair comment, my charge is you didn't read a page from a channel 4 web site. My reading is independent, I reach conclusions for myself.



May I spell this one out:

"Independent financial experts at The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has another concern.

It says there is nothing to stop high tax payers changing their earning behaviour in light of higher taxes. And, it asserts, most changes in behaviour will have an adverse affect on the party's ability to raise the predicted sums.

High earners could reduce their taxable incomes knowing the financial penalty from doing so is diminished. For example, they could decide to work fewer hours, retire earlier or, most drastically of all, leave the country and work elsewhere.

High-income foreigners, meanwhile, might choose not to come to the UK in the same numbers as today. "

Above from Factfile page previously quoted. So IFS do have concerns about the Lib dem proposals and not what you think at all. Still it doesn't matter as the Lib dems will not be in office.




Nowhere have I suggested this. The governments under Harold Wilson though, the first Premier with a degree in economics nearly made it possible. Wilson's government was hit by crisis on the pound about which he unfortunately made the wrong decisions.

The New Labour project which led to a thorough internal reform of the Labour Party has enabled new skills of presentation and has indeed made it possible for labour to look forward to a Third term ofgovernment.


That's not a fair comment. The New Labour government was prepared to allow matters to remain as they are. It would have been a bizarre act to suddenly re-nationalise companies sold off cheaply, though clearly public opinion did seem to swing in favour of re-nationalising the railway industry due to the incompetence of the companies resposible and the massive public investment they enjoy.





No, New Labour is not a scam, it certainly is successful don't assume my agreement there is no agreement with you.


Well you may have to wait forever. Blair has a remarkable ability to bounce back again, he is according to a poll I saw not long ago leading the popularity stakes well ahead of Howard & Kennedy. Depends what you mean by "lefties" I beleive few people would associate themselves with extremism from the left it's not a viable alternative.


Well it goes to show that the Labour Party is not monolithic, people have opinions and views as I do which may or may not differ from those in leadership positions,

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Same here. My family left for Florida years ago. Their lives have improved dramatically and they wouldn't come back for anything. The only reason might be if I get denied residency out there, but I won't let my family come back, they deserve to be there.

My family didn't spend thousands of pounds, and God knows how much agro to move from this country for the fun of it. There were so happy here, was, and still are, patriotic English through and through, but they felt forced to leave as it was their only route to give themselves an acceptable standard of living. As parents they had a duty to all of us kids, if nothing else. Its not like they wanted to go and leave behind all their relatives, friends, for the sake of it.

And weather isn't the sole consideration for ex-pats. My parents did consider New England, which gets a damn sight more snow than we do. It comes down to money. I'd rather be cold and rich, than warm and poor.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Dover is a specific example raised frequently and specifically. A Labour peer (Hattersley IIRC) conceded on Today last week that in constituencies such as that, where there is a strong, local impact due to asylum and immigration, Labour is going to have a hard time at the polls. This is the central point I have been driving at. Strife caused by asylum seeking is localised - which will be why you don't encounter it during your canvssing - but requires a national policy solution.


If you read what I have been saying all afternoon, you will find that nowhere have I suggested the IFS does not have concerns about the Lib Dem policy. What I have been suggesting is that the nature of those concerns is nothing out of the ordinary. The Lib Dems have mapped out a scenario which includes certain assumptions about future events. If you accuse them of being 'vague' on that basis, then you are duty bound to consider Gordon Brown 'vague' when he does exactly the same thing with his own economic forecasts. This is a point you have completely ignored, though I have now made it three times.

It does matter, by the way, not because it is highly unlikely that the Lib Dems will win power, but because double-standards like this do nothing for the standard of debate.

'unfortunately made the wrong decisions'? Tell me, did you manage to keep a straight face while you typed that? So even an economics graduate couldn't make Old Labour dogma work. But a shopkeeper's daughter from Grantham turned this country around. Truly I'm starting to think the old ideas of left and right, working class and middle class, were a bit of a myth all along.

Well at least we agree that New Labour is about spin and presentation rather than anything of substance. ;)

It's an entirely fair comment and one you'll find broad support for among politicos and commentators of all persuasions. You migth even find tacit support among your own ranks if you look hard enough. If Labour truly considered Thatcher's reforms the anathema they said they were at the time, they have had 8 years to do something about it. I don't believe for a minute that Blair would have entertained renationalising anything, even if he thought he could afford it. And I think it is totally bogus of you to look at the public mood towards Railtrack and infer wider public support for a programme of renationalisation of the Utilities.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

If you limit the numbers of people allowed in (thats assuming were talking about economic migrants and not asylum seekers as I could NEVER agree with limiting the number of asylum seekers) they will still congregate, causing the sort of problems you talk about. I can't see it creating a huge difference where there is supposedly problems currently.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

You can always apply for a postal vote or to vote by proxy until 26th April:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/Howtovote/

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Tactical voting here with a no vote

reasons:
I live in a town thats been Labour for decades so no chance of tactically voting any Tory candidate, which as I am of the opinion that both labour and Tory are both about as trust worthy as a bunch of upturned mops to run a country neither would recieve a tactical vote anyway.

As for others I havnt seen any with good enough policies either so there is NO lesser evil.

PS I missed the first poll here

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Isn't it time for week 3?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

It is. I'll be closing this thread in the next hour and opening a new one. :)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

I know, but we will be away when the postal vote forms arrive.