Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

They would have done it by now if it was simple, whos blocking it? What are the political costs of removing it? In other words, why hasnt anything been done :confused: These issues always get complex

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

The link you've given says it's already been repealed :confused:

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

After 18 years of neglect can you blame them? :erm:
__________________

You may be right, that was a quick Goggle on it, but my understanding ( and I guess GC's otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it) was that it was still in force (or farce, depends how you view it :angel: ).

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

The public service issue depends where you are. I know many people who have said for them the NHS is better but they are not sure about everywhere else. Mine has certainly improved, while a family friend who visits quite often over the past 12 years said that in the last 5 years he has had much better service.

Not sure about everywhere else but theres a few that are good

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

s28 has been repealed - but it's still in force.

When s28 first came onto the Statue books, Councils reacted with fear and went way too far. Anything that might be remotely considered to be "promoting homosexuality" had funding withdrawn (effectively banned). It even extended to lists of gay organisations and groups been removed incase this was seen to be "promoting homosexuality". The law has gone - attitudes and policies remain. It highlights the interplay between law and societal values: does the law define our values, or do are values define the law?

You also have the scourge that is the PTA, which keeps schools frightened of discussing homosexuality in sex education.

I think it's upto the gay kids in schools now to push for change - and they are doing. They have more of a voice now then ever before.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Good post... Can someone rep GC for me please?

Its a nice Call-To-Arms rally cry, and I think things seem to be changing, especially as high profile celebrities like Elton John, Graham Norton (and to a certain extent Will Young) are around to prove you can be gay, and still liked and respected. That helps to remove the stigma of it, I think. Once the older generations lose that, then that will be reflected onto the children.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Bloody still undecided :(

My head says the tories... my heart says labour.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Labour for more 'illegal' asylum seekers/immigrants and higher taxes, why do you guys bother?

If I could vote (I can't because I am Canadian) I would vote the Liberal Democrats even though they stand no chance of winning and the party leader is a douchebag; simply because most of their policies are better and different than Conservative/Labour combined. The 50% tax thing works in Canada, Liberals have been in power there for over 20 years and it works. Hint hint :)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Firstly, the Lib dems can promise anything knowing they won't be called upon to deliver, they cannot and will not form the next government.

Secondly, the whole issue concerning immigration/asylum seekers has been completely overblown, a non story.

Thirdly, Labour is the only party that in government will keep our economy expanding and deliver much needed economic and social reform.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Hear Hear!

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

looks like the Liberals have a few problems to overcome in Canada, before they can assume another 20 years in office..

http://www.frankw.net/archive/canadi...y_yank_blogger

;)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

It was a good 20 years though! in UK the tories can't get a decent party leader, and the liberals have done nothing but steadily decline the quality of the country in my opinion. (I have lived here before for several years not just the last few ) :)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

I wasn't really making any point other than, what appeared to me to be an amusing co-incidence ;)

- my apologies if you already know this, but the author of the blog I linked to is co-founder of this site, who moved to Canada a year or so back. I just happened to glance at his blog not long after reading your post & it tickled my warped sense of humour. ;)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Somehow I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that the Lib Dem party is a refuge for people that like to talk hot air for the fun of it. They aren't making promises on the basis that they will never have to deliver on them. What would be the point of that? They are making promises on the same basis as all the major parties do; they believe their policies are best for Britain and want the chance to put them into action. Whether they are right about that or not is a different issue, but let's not descend into petty insults. I might as well suggest that Tone has a secret agenda to wreck Britain just because I happen to disagree with most of his ideas. Plain daft.

By the way, I think you're right, they won't form the next Government, but I think it is plain wrong to say they cannot. The Lib Dems have about as much direct experience of the Cabinet room as Labour did in 1997. ;)

The standard retort of a politician who prefers not to engage with a difficult issue. Asylum is a major issue if you live in any community currently being asked to absorb asylum seekers. Labour's record on this is simply abysmal. Let's not forget that it was Labour's complete failure to renew an agreement with the French, initially set up by the Tories, that used to allow the authorities to return anyone found sneaking into the UK from France, back to France, no questions asked. The Sangatte camp would not have been a problem had that treaty still existed. And don't let's start suggesting such a thing was unfair or illegal. Asylum seekers are meant to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Last time I checked, France was reasonably safe. But then France is more likely to deal swiftly with economic migrants, while Britain under Labour is known as a place where you can claim asylum and then just disappear when your bogus application is turned down.

With the greatest of respect, that bald statement is just a piece of party political hot air, unless you can back it up with some critical analysis of the various parties and their policies?
__________________

What was below the belt about that? :confused:

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Despite the traditional mindset of their supporters, I think most of the Lib Dems policies are pretty feasible, but also a bit too selective in who they like.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

out of the main three partys though, i feel the libdems are the only one have stuck to thier true colours since the mid-90's.

the big two are typically trying to scare the electorate to death ... vote for us or DIEEEEEEE !!! ... zeig heil !!!

and remember, sex sells, but it can't hold a candle to fears selling power!

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Immigration, why do people belive this is a problem then?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

i dont know why but i have always leaned towards giving the liberal democrats a chance, looking over their policies i would say they are attractive to choose as a party to run this country.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...574089,00.html


labour are also the party of pensions - removing tax advantages from the pension funds plus giving plenty of (other) incentives to make people NOT save for retirement. for example the 'minimum income guarantee' means those who have saved for their retirement can in some cases be no better off than those who didnt.

labour also employ a vast amount of wastage in terms of 'human capital' (Tony's new favorate meaningless buzz words).

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Because it causes populations in certain areas of the country to expand at a rate more rapid than public services can cope with, and it causes communities to feel insecure when they believe their established. traditional way of life is under threat from 'imported' culture.

Let's get something clear, however. The Tories are not saying 'immigration is a problem'. They are saying uncontrolled immigration is a problem. It is only Labour smear tactics that is causing some to believe the Conservative policy is anti-immigrant. If we can get control of immigration into this country, by ensuring we limit the numbers to that which we are able to absorb without stressing our public services or risking civil strife ... well, if I could reverse the question, why do (some) people believe that is a problem then?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

But there was been no evidence of health tourism. I.E Theres no proven strain on the NHS. Also over 100,000 people working in the NHS, including doctors, are immigrants. On a whole only 8% of immigrants claim money of the state and even then they get 30% less than a british person. Overall immigrants give more money to the state than take.

In the last two years immgration has dropped sharply from two years ago when it had reached problem levels.

on another note, I did not know that cancer deaths are down 12%, thats good news. :)

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

I am actually a Labour activist canvassing support on the doorsteps etc, etc.

Most people are more concerned about cracked pavements, local services etc etc. Hardly anyone mentions the Iraq war, immigration etc etc.

Frankly, this general election is, as always between either a continuing Labour government or a Tory one. Lib dems are few and far in between. As I wrote they can promise anything, nothing is properly costed by them, they, the Lib dems promise to be all thing things to all, it is quite dishonest to behave in such a fashion.

Remembering the nightmare years of Thatcher's rule in the 80s when social division, misery and depreviation occured, followed by the blundering, fruitless, wasted, idiotic rule of Major, I have no wish to see history repeated, the Tories have nothing to offer ordinary folk.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

You are looking so hard at the big picture that you're missing some of the specifics.

This isn't about 'health tourism', it's about vast numbers of asylum seekers being housed in places like Dover and swamping local services like the GP and the dentist. Getting an appointment at your local surgery can be hard enough at the best of times, but when the surgery's catchment is swollen by a measurable percentage in a very short time, you have a problem.

This isn't about being 'anti-immigrant', as I have already said. If I were saying that immigration is a bad thing per se, then your point about immigrants working in the NHS would be a good one. However, as I am not saying that immigration is a bad thing, your point is a little irrelevant. The UK has a skills shortage in certain areas and a population level in long-term decline. We do need immigration - we need controlled immigration that addresses such needs yet without overloading local services.

Final point ... which Party was in power two years ago when immigration reached 'problem levels'? And is that Party not therefore a little cheeky to take credit for falling levels when all it has done is to take steps to remedy a problem of its own making?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

I'm quite surprised that you describe the Lib Dems as dishonest, without a chance to see if their promises would be kept - what I do know is that the last 8 years have seen the likes of Mandelson & Campbell institutionalise the concept of lying to the electorate. This, to the extent that I will never vote for a party that has Tony Blair as leader - which is a great shame as I am from a background where my Grandfathers were respectively a coal miner & a dock worker and I have always voted Labour, in previous elections.

Whether it be Conservative or Lib Dem that eventually gets my vote it will be a vote against Tony Blair & the cynical, patronising assumption that 'spin' & sound bytes constitute a meaningful dialogue with the electorate. :(

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Lucky for you. You'd be in a mess otherwise. I suggest, though, that you are canvassing in a constituency that has not had problems related to Labour's bungling asylum and immigration policy. Even senior Labourites are conceding that it will be an issue in certain areas of the country, which is why the Tories are using the 'dog whistle' technique, speaking relevant messages to the people who need to hear it.

Their economic policies are costed and verified by the IFS just the same as Labour and Tory policies are. For someone who spends their days actively campaigning for a political party I'm sad to say I find the arguments you put to be sadly lacking in substance.

If Tory rule from 1979-1997 was the continuous, unmitigated disaster you say it is, please answer two questions, if you can:

1. Why were they elected for four continuous terms?
2. Why has Labour since 1997 not sought to undo Tory structural reforms to the economy?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

The only ones who can access a GP would be legal immigrants. In other words ones who have been allowed to stay, most asylum seekers applications are rejected and removed.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Our health service does not refuse to treat people who turn up in urgent need of treatment. To do so would be unethical. Even illegal immigrants/failed asylum seekers can get treatment.

In any case, you have to count among those 'allowed to stay', those who have not yet been told to leave. Those with permission to stay, plus those not yet told to leave, represent a rather larger number than you are suggesting.
__________________

By the way, you've still not addressed the other point I made. Asylum and immigration is only an issue at this election because of the complete c0ck-up Labour has made of it over the last eight years.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

The Tory campaign on immigration is designed to scare people to death. Consider one vital ingredient that you and the Tory propagandists misout. Any sensible discussion of immigration statistics must consider emigration statistics:

I suggest you read:FactCheck

The year 2002: 359,000 UK residents moved overseas.
The year 2003: 362,000 UK residents moved overseas.

The net difference hardly qualifies for alarm.

Substance? Consider the vague notion of imposing a 50% tax on those earning over £100,00 0 pa. This rather vague idea seems quite magically resolve many Lib dem spending plans, it is quite frankly difficult for anyone to see how such an idea will resolve tax spending plans.

Consider: FactCheck



The answer to 1: The Labour Party was unfortunatetly in a mess at that time, there was no real opposition due to internal difficulties, made worse by the betrayal of the gang of four and the formation of the SDP.

The answer to 2: This is old ground; reasons were given in 1997 to continue as before, using Tory spending plans in place, which since then is of course is no longer the case. Privatisation has a role and I like many others accept such changes were necessary. Remember though that many former publically owned industries were sold off at below market values.Council House sales were clearly popular and I think we made a mistake on this one, you must realise of course that the sales were at knock down prices and were not at market rates.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

But they have addessed it. Look at the stats (BBC have a lot of them). It has been cut sharply in the last two years. Sure it went up under them, i am not denying that. But I am also saying they have taken back down again

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

You're missing the point I have been trying to make. The issue of rapid population increase is important primarily because of the localised effect it has. You simply can't say that, just because 362,000 people moved out of the UK in 2003, the resultant ease on overall population levels mitigates the effect of uncontrolled immigration. Where did the 362,000 come from? Do the numbers of emigrants from any particular town affected by immigration match the number of immigrants to the same town? I doubt it.

I say again, there is nothing vague about the Lib Dem plans, and you are unfairly deriding them for doing nothing different than every Party does. Yes, the IFS has demonstrated the assumptions made in the calculations and shown how things would not work out if certain factors altered. However the Lib Dems have done nothing different than any other Party in this respect. Brown is famous for sticking to growth projections that other financial analysts have derided. So far he has been proven right, by and large. Yet I don't hear you queueing up to call your Chancellor vague for making plans based on certain ssumptions, even though the experts were easily able to show how, if certain assumed outcomes did not occur, his plans would be in tatters.

Internal difficulties? The SDP? So mass nationalisation, a high tax regime, Union barons and unilateral disarmament had nothing to do with it? Come on, that's lame. Very lame indeed.

So, to cut to the quick, there is at the start of the 21st century a consensus in mainstream British politics that the broad sweep of Thatcherite economics is the right thing for our country. :)

A couple of interesting side-points ... first, when Labour wants to trumpet its own Economic prowess, it is fair game to deride the Tories on the basis of their monumental cock-up with the ERM and the economy of the early 90s, but when someone wants to point out Labour's less than salubrious historic record on the economy, it's 'old ground'? Right ... well I guess it makes sense to someone.

and second ... I do realise that council houses were sold off at below market rates. That was the entire idea. I suggest that the reason Labour couldn't see the wood for the trees on this one is that if there's one thing that preoccupies them more than Redistribution, it is State control of as much as possible. Meanwhile the Tories take a more pragmatic stance, not averse to a massive wealth-redistributing project like selling off council houses on the cheap if it's a means to a greater end, the economic liberation of working people.

Oddly, John Humphreys on the Today programme this morning was accusing Letwin of redistributive tax policy with regards to their pensions assistance policy announced this morning. Letwin made the point about pragmatism too.

To change the subject, if I may, what do we think about the pensions policy announcement and what are the other parties planning to do about the pensions crisis so deftly created by Gordon the Grabber Brown's £5 billion tax-raid on the UK's occupational pension funds?

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

That's just plain sensible though. While I think it is positively indecent and disgusting how anyone would protest removing Saddam after all he is done, i'd vote for George Galloway if he would make me the best off.

I'd be interested to know why these people left, and how many felt forced out of their own country for a better one.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Forced? Forced? Forced? How do you reach that conclusion?

I believe over 500,000 UK residents have moved to France, supposedly one of those overtaxed countries, where the said persons have new homes. Then of course even more have taken up residence in Spain, there are of course many other destinations. The Weather! I would suspect.

In the late 80s having had enough of Thatcher I took up residence in Africa for 10 years, but I have to admit I wasn't forced, no one here in the UK is forced to take up residence elsewhere.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

My dad was one of those that left Britain in 2003. He'll never come back to live here.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Firstly, immigration is strictly controlled, no way is it uncontrolled. The net difference between emigration & immigration is not significant.



You clearly did not read the comments reported on FactCheck from the IFS. I repeat read the page on:

FactCheck




In the 1980s the Labour Party was divided as the extreme left Militant Tendency attempted to dominate Labour Party structures, this resulted in a loss of support for Labour at the time. The winter of discontent was also to blame as militant trade unionism was on the rise. Nationalisation was a policy of the 1945 government, I also recall that Edward Heath's Tory government nationalised Rolls Royce before it was sold off. Well as for nuclear disarmamment was popular at the time CND & END marches were huge and I still beleive far bigger than the protests over Iraq. The 80s were overshadowed by the development of Soviet SS20s & US cruise missiles and it scared millions of people.




I seem to be missing something, redistribution of wealth? Did Tony Blair nationalise something, has he opened up the vaults in the Bank of England! State control of what? Free beer for the workers on Friday nights? Gordon Brown's tax policies have been prudent & pragmatic he has not done anything that has harmed the economy quite the reverse. Of course more funds have been made available for working families and the new deal.

I would have thought the current Labour government fits the menu for pragmatism.I don't think the Tories have a good record when it come to pensions afterall their are still millions of people around who were conned into private pensions schemes and still paying the price.





__________________

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

Waether plays a part, but please credit people with a little more motivation than that.

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.

Re: Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!
 

This thread is now closed. A new thread for week three of the campaign, including a fresh opinion poll, can be found here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=27446