The Paxman Interviews - Blair

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

No, they can't do that. They cannot say "Elbonia will be an ideal country in which to run this centre" when they aren't able to discuss it with the Elbonian goverment!

Originally Posted by Damien

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?

That's the beauty of the Tory plan, it's still flexible and able to respond to the country's needs allowing in those who's job's we require rather than allowing in everyone giving an excess of workers in other areas.
A certain member of labour (I forget her name) was pushing to get work permits for 1500 Bangladeshi to come and work here, discussing this with a Bangladeshi colleague he pointed out how stupid that was as we have more than 1500 Bangladeshi and others on the dole already!

Originally Posted by Damien

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!

Yes, and as I've said, as the workings of the bill come to light (ie how its actually going to be implimented) the political confidence in labour to do it properly dwindles and people no longer support it.
I support ID cards in principle, however I do not support the labour ID card scheme.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

You're refering to a different interview to that which I heard Damien.
Perhaps the CBI haven't got their own stance in order, or perhaps the person who I heard interviewed gave a more detailed and balanced response?

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Took his time to enter the debate didn't it? More likely he's trying to stop the Tory charge that the other parties are hiding from the issue, which they have been.

You're refering to a different interview to that which I heard Damien.
Perhaps the CBI haven't got their own stance in order, or perhaps the person who I heard interviewed gave a more detailed and balanced response?

Well what ever you listened to (odd radio 4 will talk to two different people from the CBI on successive nights), the head of the CBI has said quite clearly that it will damage business. Also just because he doesn't agree doesn't mean it wasn't a balanced response. He has said that it will damage business, as many have said. Do we ignore what experts say?

No, they can't do that. They cannot say "Elbonia will be an ideal country in which to run this centre" when they aren't able to discuss it with the Elbonian goverment!

We are not talking about finalizing details, we are talking about the basic idea. The Tories have not given any idea how this would work, they simply say 'we will have off-shore processing centers' with no existing model to refer to and no idea how it would work. In short, there are promising something which they have no idea how to do it.

That's the beauty of the Tory plan, it's still flexible and able to respond to the country's needs allowing in those who's job's we require rather than allowing in everyone giving an excess of workers in other areas.
!

So if we need immigrants for a certain task and the quotas full they can still come. Also if a asylum seeker arrives and is totally genuine, came from Zimbabwe and is in real danger of being killed if he returns then we will still let him in?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well what ever you listened to (odd radio 4 will talk to two different people from the CBI on successive nights), the head of the CBI has said quite clearly that it will damage business. Also just because he doesn't agree doesn't mean it wasn't a balanced response. He has said that it will damage business, as many have said. Do we ignore what experts say?

The person you quoted is not talking about what the tories are proposing.
He's talking about a definite cap which has not been devised through negotiations with industry.
I don't know of any party that is proposing that (apart from maybe the BNP where their cap is set at -250,000)

Originally Posted by Damien

We are not talking about finalizing details, we are talking about the basic idea. The Tories have not given any idea how this would work, they simply say 'we will have off-shore processing centers' with no existing model to refer to and no idea how it would work. In short, there are promising something which they have no idea how to do it.

You say we're not talking about finalising details, but then you want finalised details
They have explained in detail how it will work according to their plans, the only thing they cannot do is say where these centres will be simply because they are not in a political position to do such a thing.

Originally Posted by Damien

So if we need immigrants for a certain task and the quotas full they can still come. Also if a asylum seeker arrives and is totally genuine, came from Zimbabwe and is in real danger of being killed if he returns then we will still let him in?

You're not understanding what the tories or myself have said.
The immigration quotas will be geared through continual negotiations with industry so that the skills that industry requires. Should there be a sudden requirment for skills that had not been taken into account, then the cap can be modified so that we can accept workers that we need.

Under the Tory plan, it would be forcing the UN to take charge of asylum seeker placements as they are supposed to. Any excess over the limits would be refered to the UN for placement. Genuine asylum seekers would not be sent back where they came from by a Tory goverment.

Oh and in light of how Labour view the situation, Zimbabwe is a very very bad example to give for asylum seekers, between January and November 2004 1,825 of the 2,025 Zimbabweans who applied for asylum were refused it.
They're being sent back to Mugabe as we speak.

A lot of asylum seekers are rejected applications because they didnt stop in the first country that could accept them, so they may not have been sent right back.

You say we're not talking about finalising details, but then you want finalised details
They have explained in detail how it will work according to their plans, the only thing they cannot do is say where these centres will be simply because they are not in a political position to do such a thing

You are presuming a lot to say a country will accept off shore asylum seekers

The person you quoted is not talking about what the tories are proposing.
He's talking about a definite cap which has not been devised through negotiations with industry.
I don't know of any party that is proposing that (apart from maybe the BNP where their cap is set at -250,000)

So anytime the companies want more immigrants they have to enter discussions with the government? Every time the quota would have to be changed? Also howard said in the interview that he we enter a 'discussion' every time they need adjustments and wont necessary adjust them. Also he was talking about the quota, its in the article. Isnt this tying them up with red type?

Under the Tory plan, it would be forcing the UN to take charge of asylum seeker placements as they are supposed to. Any excess over the limits would be refered to the UN for placement

We wants to withdraw from the UN Convention, makes make you so sure that the UN will then happily work with them after withdrawing from a convention that only some of the worlds worst countrys have withdrawn from

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

You are presuming a lot to say a country will accept off shore asylum seekers

You are presuming a lot to say a country won't accept off shore asylum seekers

Originally Posted by Damien

So anytime the companies want more immigrants they have to enter discussions with the government? Every time the quota would have to be changed? Also howard said in the interview that he we enter a 'discussion' every time they need adjustments and wont necessary adjust them. Also he was talking about the quota, its in the article. Isnt this tying them up with red type?

Not really, unless you're saying the CBI is an inneffective voice for industry?

Originally Posted by Damien

We wants to withdraw from the UN Convention, makes make you so sure that the UN will then happily work with them after withdrawing from a convention that only some of the worlds worst countrys have withdrawn from

Britain is a safe country.
We're willing to take as many asylum seekers as we can socially, culturally and economically accept.
Do you really think the UN will turn round and deny asylum seekers safe harbour in Britain?

Not really, unless you're saying the CBI is an inneffective voice for industry?

No, they are the voice of industry and they are saying this will harm industry

You are presuming a lot to say a country won't accept off shore asylum seekers

That is what happens know the Tories are the ones suggesting it should be changed so they are the ones will have to provide as much evidence as they can that it is possible, not me.

Britain is a safe country.
We're willing to take as many asylum seekers as we can socially, culturally and economically accept.
Do you really think the UN will turn round and deny asylum seekers safe harbour in Britain?

I am saying they will make life difficult. I disagree with withdrawing from the UN convention (although looks like the UN wont let em)

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

No, they are the voice of industry and they are saying this will harm industry

No, they are saying that a fixed cap introduced by the goverment without taking into consideration the needs of industry would harm industry.
Now you seem to be under the impression that is what the Tories are proposing, despite being told different several times.

Originally Posted by Damien

That is what happens know the Tories are the ones suggesting it should be changed so they are the ones will have to provide as much evidence as they can that it is possible, not me.

Could you please correct that statement so I can actually make sense of it?

Originally Posted by Damien

I am saying they will make life difficult. I disagree with withdrawing from the UN convention (although looks like the UN wont let em)

You really do think that the UN won't send asylum seekers to a safe nation that is offering to take them? Amazing!