The Paxman Interviews - Blair

[Raistlin]

Best laugh I've had in ages.....

Originally Posted by Damien

I can imagine the newspaper cartoons now, Blair with a lump on his back (i.e Bush) with a mic running to his ear and campbell in the background. Howard looking like a vampire and a head of a immigrant in his hands and Kennedy on the floor, with bottles of wiskey alll around him

[Xaccers]

The reason why blair wouldn't appear with Howard or any previous tory leaders live on TV is because he knows he'd be shown up, just look at PM questions, blair was so bad at it he had them changed to just 30 mins!
Sure he's been fine with the media who up until recent years have mostly loved him, and he's been in control, but you can see from his recent run ins with the public that he doesn't like being told that he's failed people and they don't like him.

[orangebird]

I love Paxman

Originally Posted by orangebird

I love Paxman

I would love to have his confidence!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The reason why blair wouldn't appear with Howard or any previous tory leaders live on TV is because he knows he'd be shown up, just look at PM questions, blair was so bad at it he had them changed to just 30 mins!
Sure he's been fine with the media who up until recent years have mostly loved him, and he's been in control, but you can see from his recent run ins with the public that he doesn't like being told that he's failed people and they don't like him.

Actually Blair has widely been thought of as good at PMQ. In the early days of Howards leadership he couldnt land an attack on Blair. Blair does hold himself up quite well. The reason why he hasnt done it before is because no one else has, why should he be any different? If your expected to win an election then you dont have a debate, this is because you cannot win many votes but you can lose them.

Seems unfair to attack Blair on this when no previous leaders have had a TV debate. Also as for getting attacks on TV when giving interviews, he allows them too, some prime ministers may not go for so much debate on TV but he does. He went on BBC, Sky, ITV, Channel 5 even MTV for live debates. Of course he doesnt like to be told people dont like him, who would? but he still goes onto TV for live debates. Howard got attacked badly on ITV, really was a train wreck but good for him to allow himself to be open to it as well

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Actually Blair has widely been thought of as good at PMQ. In the early days of Howards leadership he couldnt land an attack on Blair. Blair does hold himself up quite well. The reason why he hasnt done it before is because no one else has, why should he be any different? If your expected to win an election then you dont have a debate, this is because you cannot win many votes but you can lose them.

Seems unfair to attack Blair on this when no previous leaders have had a TV debate. Also as for getting attacks on TV when giving interviews, he allows them too, some prime ministers may not go for so much debate on TV but he does. He went on BBC, Sky, ITV, Channel 5 even MTV for live debates. Of course he doesnt like to be told people dont like him, who would? but he still goes onto TV for live debates. Howard got attacked badly on ITV, really was a train wreck but good for him to allow himself to be open to it as well

Tony Bliar is appauling at PMQ, which is why he changed it from an hour to two 30 min sessions, he could not cope with Hague.
Every poplitical analyst I've heard on the matter agrees with that.
He then regularly got mauled by IDS and Howard often gets TB flustered, so much so that TB has had to resort to totally ignoring questions, answering the question asked before so that the final question never recieved an answer, and then of course there was the incident when he was so flumoxed he forgot who was PM and started asking Howard questions

As for Howard on ITV, he made some good points, although needs to change his hand gestures.
And it was ironic that he was accused of not knowing what it was like to be a first generation immigrant experiencing racism when his parents came here fleeing the Nazi's and he's had to change his surname in order to get where he is today.

A very good point about the immigration issue was made on the radio while I was coming into work, that the reason why the other parties are accusing the Tories of playing the race card by bringing up immigration is simply because they don't have a clue what to do themselves and it's easier to do that than enter into a discussion.
Take the Lib Dems "we'll have an independant commision look into the issue" which is political talk for "we haven't a clue and don't want anyone to be able to call us racist so they can blame the commision"

A very good point about the immigration issue was made on the radio while I was coming into work, that the reason why the other parties are accusing the Tories of playing the race card by bringing up immigration is simply because they don't have a clue what to do themselves and it's easier to do that than enter into a discussion.

Judging from Howards interview he didnt have much of an idea either. Also labour have made a speech on it this morning. Also no one is accusing them of playing the race card, they are saying they are playing on fears. The torys keep talking about racism on this issue because they think it 1) Appeals to the audience 2) gives there stance more credibility (i.e we are making a stand)

Howardââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s plan is flawed. He will keep the asylum seekers on offshore asylum centres, yet he has no idea where they could be, he admitted that himself. How many countries will allow an asylum-processing centre to be in their country? If we are the magnet to immigrants and asylum seekers as we are led to believe who would want their country to be the targeting point of these waves and waves of asylum seekers!

Of course his other big idea is to remove us from the UN Convention on immigration, no other civilised country has ever removed themselfs from this convention. Although not directly related he also wants to scrap the human rights act, Of course maybe he does hold human rights at the top of his agenda, after all he oppress the ID cards bill (apart from when he supported it)

Back to immigration, He really does like the idea of quotas. Despite the obvious problem of what if an asylum seeker turns up after the quota is filled is the fact that the UN not only would withdraw their support but also is telling him that he cannot withdraw from the UN Convention. Maybe the UN doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t understand immigration? Well the head of the Confederation of British Industry says it will harm British business.

So, the UN and the CBI condemn the plans. He cannot tell us where the asylum seekers will be kept, he cannot give us a quota, and he canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t withdraw us from the UN Convention. So how is this a sensible stand from the Tories?

So who gave the best interview?

Kennedy, Blair or Howard?

[Mal]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

So who gave the best interview?

Kennedy, Blair or Howard?

I only caught a bit of the Howard one, but it looked entertaining

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Judging from Howards interview he didnt have much of an idea either. Also labour have made a speech on it this morning. Also no one is accusing them of playing the race card, they are saying they are playing on fears. The torys keep talking about racism on this issue because they think it 1) Appeals to the audience 2) gives there stance more credibility (i.e we are making a stand)

Howardââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s plan is flawed. He will keep the asylum seekers on offshore asylum centres, yet he has no idea where they could be, he admitted that himself. How many countries will allow an asylum-processing centre to be in their country? If we are the magnet to immigrants and asylum seekers as we are led to believe who would want their country to be the targeting point of these waves and waves of asylum seekers!

Of course his other big idea is to remove us from the UN Convention on immigration, no other civilised country has ever removed themselfs from this convention. Although not directly related he also wants to scrap the human rights act, Of course maybe he does hold human rights at the top of his agenda, after all he oppress the ID cards bill (apart from when he supported it)

Back to immigration, He really does like the idea of quotas. Despite the obvious problem of what if an asylum seeker turns up after the quota is filled is the fact that the UN not only would withdraw their support but also is telling him that he cannot withdraw from the UN Convention. Maybe the UN doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t understand immigration? Well the head of the Confederation of British Industry says it will harm British business.

So, the UN and the CBI condemn the plans. He cannot tell us where the asylum seekers will be kept, he cannot give us a quota, and he canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t withdraw us from the UN Convention. So how is this a sensible stand from the Tories?

As he pointed out, no party in opposition has the ability to make treaties with other countries, or did you not listen to that part?
As it is, labour have been trying to do this with other EU countries, so if it's such a crazy plan, why are labour doing it too?
There are many countries which would be open and suitable for such centres with a finacial incentive.
Remember, £1 goes a very long way in many countries.

As for leaving the UN convention, he's already said that we will continue to take in asylum seekers, at the same level of genuine ones we already take (ie approx 20,000 a year) from the UN alone, not including the ones that arrive without UN intervention.
Do you honestly think that the UN would turn round to Britain and say "no you can't have them" when we open our doors to genuine aslyum seekers which the UN are trying to home?
Oh and do try not to believe the labour lies that he would deny entry to sick and ill asylum seekers.

As for rejecting ID cards and other labour policies, labour is very good at pointing out that the tories have blocked policies which on face value sound like good things, but never ever mention the valid reasons behind the tories' actions.
It's a bit like saying I'm against the fight against terrorism because I oppose the goverment's ID scheme, when the actual reason why I'm against it is because I don't believe labour can deliver what is required. See how my image changes when the reason behind it is given?
Of course what labour don't realise they're doing when they say things like this is pointing out what a good opposition the Tories make!

As for the CBI they've said on Radio 4 last nigh that they would like a points system that required things such as the ability to speak English, they would also like a cap which is decided between the goverment and themselves, strangly exactly what Howard is proposing.

So lets see, we have a points system which is in line with what the CBI have said they'd be happy with, we're open to take in as many genuine asylum seekers as we already do and will be able take in more should a sudden emergency arise, imigration centres will be set up abroad so that we don't get the hundreds of thousands of non-genuine asylum seekers dissapearing through the system that we do now.
Michael Howard has the balls to discuss these matters, too bad the other "leaders" don't.
Although TB probably has his hands full trying to explain to cherie why he's failed their childrens' school so badly that she has to give them packed lunches

As he pointed out, no party in opposition has the ability to make treaties with other countries, or did you not listen to that part?
As it is, labour have been trying to do this with other EU countries, so if it's such a crazy plan, why are labour doing it too?
There are many countries which would be open and suitable for such centres with a finacial incentive.
Remember, £1 goes a very long way in many countries.

Which countries would have them? And Blair sent a letter inquiring about the matter,, but unlike howard he just enquired about the issue but didnt keep ranting on about to gain votes. Now if he sent the letter but nothings been done, maybe there are not any countrys. Also you said it would be easy to find a country, as £1 goes a long way. What exactly kind of countries do you think we could put them in? I dont care if the conservatives are not in power they should research and see if countries are available, they said themselves they wont 'make promises they cant keep'

As for leaving the UN convention, he's already said that we will continue to take in asylum seekers, at the same level of genuine ones we already take (ie approx 20,000 a year) from the UN alone, not including the ones that arrive without UN intervention.
Do you honestly think that the UN would turn round to Britain and say "no you can't have them" when we open our doors to genuine aslyum seekers which the UN are trying to home?
Oh and do try not to believe the labour lies that he would deny entry to sick and ill asylum seekers.

First of all he cannot withdraw from the convention without some difficulty, look at the article. Next, you cannot put a limit of asylum seekers, so what happens what the 20,001 asylum seeker arrives? What happens if there is a humanitarian disaster

As for rejecting ID cards and other labour policies, labour is very good at pointing out that the tories have blocked policies which on face value sound like good things, but never ever mention the valid reasons behind the tories' actions.
It's a bit like saying I'm against the fight against terrorism because I oppose the goverment's ID scheme, when the actual reason why I'm against it is because I don't believe labour can deliver what is required. See how my image changes when the reason behind it is given?
Of course what labour don't realise they're doing when they say things like this is pointing out what a good opposition the Tories make

They supported it up until recently then they rejected the same bill they previously supported, Howard even tried to introduce them when he was in government.

As for the CBI they've said on Radio 4 last nigh that they would like a points system that required things such as the ability to speak English, they would also like a cap which is decided between the goverment and themselves, strangly exactly what Howard is proposing

Also Labour are having the points system with the ability to speak english. I would like to point out however that economic immigrants usually talk english in the first place. Also the CBI boss rejected the idea of the quota, unless the BBC are lying

Here is his quote from radio 4 again, provided by the BBC: He told BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight: "If we have a cap of any sort it will tie businesses' hands from the flexibility which is, after all, the hallmark of the British labour market. So we are not in favour of a cap. That was the same program! But here he is rejecting the cap not supporting it

Michael Howard has the balls to discuss these matters, too bad the other "leaders"

Blair has! Just because he didnt bleat on about it day after day doesn't mean he didnt discuss it

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Which countries would have them? And Blair sent a letter inquiring about the matter,, but unlike howard he just enquired about the issue but didnt keep ranting on about to gain votes. Now if he sent the letter but nothings been done, maybe there are not any countrys. Also you said it would be easy to find a country, as £1 goes a long way. What exactly kind of countries do you think we could put them in? I dont care if the conservatives are not in power they should research and see if countries are available, they said themselves they wont 'make promises they cant keep'

What part of being in opposition and therefore unable to approach other goverments don't you understand?

Originally Posted by Damien

First of all he cannot withdraw from the convention without some difficulty, look at the article. Next, you cannot put a limit of asylum seekers, so what happens what the 20,001 asylum seeker arrives? What happens if there is a humanitarian disaster

Perhaps you try and get a copy of the ITV program again and this time actually listen to what he said.
Howard made it perfectly clear that in the event of any humanitarian disasters we would accept as many as needed.
What he is trying to do is force the UN to do it's job in allocating asylum seekers to countries in such number that they can culturaly, socially, and economically cope with.

Originally Posted by Damien

They supported it up until recently then they rejected the same bill they previously supported, Howard even tried to introduce them when he was in government.

As the details became more clear that the goverment didn't have a clue how to impliment it properly, are you suprised they didn't back it?
Why back something which is a waste of money and isn't going to do the things that you want it to do?
Just because the tories wanted to impliment ID cards themselves doesn't mean they should automatically support any plan to bring in ID cards!

Originally Posted by Damien

Also Labour are having the points system with the ability to speak english. I would like to point out however that economic immigrants usually talk english in the first place. Also the CBI boss rejected the idea of the quota, unless the BBC are lying

Here is his quote from radio 4 again, provided by the BBC: He told BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight: "If we have a cap of any sort it will tie businesses' hands from the flexibility which is, after all, the hallmark of the British labour market. So we are not in favour of a cap. That was the same program! But here he is rejecting the cap not supporting it

That wasn't the program I was listening to.

Originally Posted by Damien

Blair has! Just because he didnt bleat on about it day after day doesn't mean he didnt discuss it

Could you please give me details of when BLiar and labour have addressed the subjects of immigration and asylum and what they proposed to do to improve the situation, because I certainly can't remember labour saying much about it!

[ntluser]

All I can recall Blair saying about immigration and asylum..apart from criticising the Tory policy ... was that they were going to employ 600 more border "guards".

The big problem for Blair is because of his sloppy immigration arrangements he doesn't know how many illegal immigrants we have got. He therefore doesn't know if any of them were terrorists.Nor did he specify what action was to be taken about the immigrants already here. Makes a bit of a mockery of his plans for ID cards and for improving security when they can walk in not properly checked by an overburdened immigration service.

We need a large coastal security force operating 24 hours a day to ensure that people don't land here at night unnoticed.

We need to close our borders to non-nationals and require that they do not come to Britain unless the necessary processing of their papers has been completed in advance and that they have been authorised to come here.

We need Social Services to liaisse with the Immigration service to identify immigrants claiming benefits who have not secured paid and taxed employment. After a specified period, if no employment is gained they need to be expelled from the country. In the case of asylum seekers, whose lives may be in danger, if they are unwilling to make a positive contribution they should be sent to a safe country which will take them and hopefully they will make a positive contribution there with no threat to their lives.

We need to make it clear that immigrants with specific skills will be most welcome.

We need more immigration staff to speed up the process, but security needs to be the main focus.

Overall, we do need a more effective immigration and asylum policy and sadly Tony Blair does not have one.

What part of being in opposition and therefore unable to approach other goverments don't you understand?

The logic is that you at least have some idea of the countries that would have such a system, and if they cannot contact another goverment how can they be so sure they can implement the policy?

Perhaps you try and get a copy of the ITV program again and this time actually listen to what he said.
Howard made it perfectly clear that in the event of any humanitarian disasters we would accept as many as needed.
What he is trying to do is force the UN to do it's job in allocating asylum seekers to countries in such number that they can culturaly, socially, and economically cope with.

Fine, but that already proves that the quota is not a final amount in that sense, what if a sudden skill storage appears will the quota be changed then too?

As the details became more clear that the goverment didn't have a clue how to impliment it properly, are you suprised they didn't back it?
Why back something which is a waste of money and isn't going to do the things that you want it to do?
Just because the tories wanted to impliment ID cards themselves doesn't mean they should automatically support any plan to bring in ID cards!

They supported THIS bill, the BILL that they then objected too after. Howard even wrote a letter in the telegraph stating why the bill should pass!

That wasn't the program I was listening to.

Well maybe you misheard because that is the BBC website, they are talking about the radio 4 interview and quite clearly he said the cap would be a bad thing for business. Its there is black and white. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4474997.stm

Tory plans to put a cap on migrants coming into the UK would tie industry's hands, the head of Britain's top business association has said.

He told BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight: "If we have a cap of any sort it will tie businesses' hands from the flexibility which is, after all, the hallmark of the British labour market. So we are not in favour of a cap.

"To say we are going to cap them at a certain figure, then, frankly, unless that figure was so enormous we would say 'you are tying our hands when you don't need to'."

Sir Digby said every 1% increase in immigration brought a 1.5% increase in national wealth and that 97% of immigrants found work straight away.

Seems pretty clear to me....I also find the last bit there intresting

Could you please give me details of when BLiar and labour have addressed the subjects of immigration and asylum and what they proposed to do to improve the situation, because I certainly can't remember labour saying much about it!

No problem. Friday morning, Dover. Long speech talking about immigration [B]