Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gogogo
Firstly, immigration is strictly controlled, no way is it uncontrolled. The net difference between emigration & immigration is not significant.
|
You are still looking at the net change in overall population and refusing to consider the rise/fall of local populations.
Quote:
You clearly did not read the comments reported on FactCheck from the IFS. I repeat read the page on:
FactCheck
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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.