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.

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by punky

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

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.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>



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

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

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.

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

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.

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

FactCheck

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.

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.

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?

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.





__________________

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Gogogo

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.

<snip>

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