Vote 2005, week 2, new poll!

Originally Posted by orangebird

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

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

[Charlie_Bubble]

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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

Controlled my arse!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

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.

Originally Posted by Shaun

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.

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.

[ian@huth]

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?

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

Clarify this, give examples.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

[punky]

Originally Posted by orangebird

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

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

Clarify this, give examples.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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?

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

[NitroNutter]

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

[ian@huth]

Isn't it time for week 3?

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

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by bob_builder

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

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