• >I'm going to disagree. I would love to see the Lib Dems in power. But until we see a reformed electoral system I think tactical voting is wise.I am opposed to the Conservatives getting in because I really don't think they have good leaders, managers, visions, philosophies or ideas. Cameron's best argument against Clegg since the last debate has been 'vote for me because you don't want Labour in again'. Is that his best argument and the main reason we should be voting Conservative? I think most Brits would agree with me when I say I'm tired of hearing how bad the opposition are; tell us why you're better!At the end of the day we don't really know what the Conservatives are going to do if they get into government because they don't know themselves. A senior Conservative figure evidently told a journalist that Cameron didn't go into too much detail because he was scared of frightening people off with his policy proposals. That sounds to me like either he doesn't believe them all himself, or he thinks that most of the electorate won't agree!So I would vote either Labour or Lib Dem, whichever have the chance of beating the Conservatives!

  • >Just realised that was a little bit hypocritical about giving reasons not to vote Conservative rather than reasons to vote for the others. So a few reasons to vote Labour:. "The devil you know": We know where Labour stands on the economy and most economists think they are managing affairs well, with an expected return to about 2 – 2.5% growth next year.. Fairness & Equality of Opportunity: All parties have come out and made commitments to fairness recently. But Labour is the party that was founded on the basis of achieving fairness and equality of opportunity. Although we know that Cameron stands for addressing the causes of social breakdown, and for promoting fairness, we do not know how many conservatives agree. But Labour candidates generally joined their party because of those values. And remember a vote is for the party not the Prime Minister.And a few reasons to vote Lib Dem:. They will reform the electoral system for real. Labour have committed to reform but only what they have to and no more. The Lib Dems stand for Proportional Representation.. They will support the Chagossian's right to return where both the Conservatives and Labour party have trodden on the rights of these people for 50 years!. The Lib Dems are being much more honest about where they are going to cut spending. At a time when everyone is screaming for more honesty and a government more in touch with the people how do the Conservative and Labour party have the nerve not to release detailed spending plans before the election?

  • >Sean, this was actually meant to be a serious question.By all means if you think you can win the debate with BNP go ahead.

  • >I congratulate you on your ability to unearth my intentions even though i only used 3 letters.But seriously, all the main parties will continue doing what they've done in the past, i.e. ignore the wishes of the people. One oft quoted definition of stupidity is "to continue doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome". Seems to me voting for the same main parties will result in continued below par public service.The only time htey will listen is if people go through with their threats to vote BNP. At the moment, despite the soundbites, the main parties still aren't taking immigration seriously, and they need to be shown that people think it is a major concern. They will only understand when real votes go to BNP.

  • >I think it would be hard to argue that the three main parties are completely in touch with the public. However I certainly don't think the BNP are any more in touch.Let's have a look at BNP policy:- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally; (this means casting asylum seekers out such as the poor boy who clung to the bottom of a bus to get out of his home country in Afghanistan where his parents were killed and he was chased with the sound of bullets ringing in his ears – yes a real example)- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British; (this means deporting a Middle Class Doctor who's lived here 20 years just for forgetting to wear a seatbelt)- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate; (this means deporting legal immigrants)- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently; (how much will that cost? And who will pay the employer who loses his prized members of staff?)- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases; (this means talent can only leave the country and not enter it; it would incentivise businesses to leave)- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain. (personally I count it an honour that so many people want to come to Britain but that is not the point. How do you define safe countries? I am sure if Griffin actually spoke to some of the people who have tried seeking asylum in places like Turkey, Greece, the Balkans and even France as I have, he would realise that it just sin't true that they are safe there. Many may be, but what would you do in their shoes? Would you risk a year or so of your life in Greece only to get chased out after settling down, or would you come straight to Britain where you know the rule of law applies?)In short BNP policy would be very costly to the economy and although it would lower immigration it would do it the wrong way: by making people not want to come here. Instead we should be encouraging other countries to take more immigrants/asylum seekers, and implementing economically viable policies to lower immigration.Unfortunately the other parties (other than the Conservatives) aren't quite as succinct about what they want so I can't copy and paste bullet points. But if you want to compare this to the policy of the 3 major parties I have put links below:. Labour: http://www.labour.org.uk/policies/fair-rules-for-the-immigration-system. Lib Dems: http://www.libdems.org.uk/immigration_and_asylum.aspx. Conservatives: http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Immigration.aspxThe three parties do take immigration seriously. They all have policies to curb immigration and indeed as Brown pointed out immigration is falling at the moment due to economic circumstances. The problem is neither that they don't take it seriously, nor that they don't have any good ideas about how to address it. The problem is that for voters it is the number 2 issue whereas for the three main parties it is further down the list.

  • >2 million illegal immigrants is a lot. But BNP obviously are a bit extreme in their policies in dealing with it. Surely though the Labour party has to be out of touch if they have 2 million illegals and don't think it's a bif priority?

  • >Hence why we have the BNP I think.Labour introduced a new points based immigration system in 2007 and since the numbers of immigrants have been declining. Labour believes that this is evidence that their plans are working, and all that's needed is a few tightened screws here and there.But of course there's the economic circumstances to take into account as explanation for falling immigration. And to be honest I think Labour have missed the mark in thinking that the issue really is immigration.Most Brits are not racist. The true issues are: jobs, language skills, and social integration. If everyone was able to get a job you would not hear anyone saying "it's those damned immigrants taking all the jobs". If language skills were better we would not get frustrated when going into a shop and struggling to understand the person behind the counter, or have him/her mis-understand what we say. And if immigrants integrated more then we wouldn't have huge communities within communities where natives are afraid to go and immigrants afraid to leave.

  • >Recent stats put economic growth at 0.2%. That's 0.2% lower than the previous figures for the last quarter of 2009. Is this the deathblow for Gordon Brown?A study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research states that under Labour the UK rose from third to second place in rankings for productivity growth among 'top nations' when figures were adgusted for population growth. However they also said that Labour had not governed Britain in a sustainable way and that more savings were needed.The Labour party presents the economy as their strength. What do you think?

  • >This whole elction seems to boil down to who you don't want in. The reality is given the state of our finances, that the international money markets will dictate our spending policies after the elction. The bond markets are already bubbling upwards on UK bonds, the rest of europe is not out of the woods as its banks haven't grasped the nettle of their poison debts.I actually think that Labour has been "saved" to some degree by the International crisis; it has covered up their incompetence. They inherited (by chance or good management) the best economic outlook for decades in 1997 and stuck to the previous regimes policies for a couple of years. Then the padlock came off the purse. Spend, spend, spend using debt!Picking up on the other blog about GDP and standard of living the next few elections are going to be about who can manage our relative decline best. We simply can not afford the welfare and health system we currently enjoy.Vote for who you like, it will not make any difference, in 10 years time the money will run out and we will have to face a very grim reality.

  • >In some respects I agree. I agree that Labour was irresponsible in its spending; I agree that there is more anti-party feeling than pro-party feeling; and I agree that we will face relative decline over the next couple of decades.However Britain was not alone in it's spending habits. It joined most of the OECD in spending based on an unrealistic level of confidence. In fact in comparison to most other rich western countries the UK was actually quite prudent. Does this forgive them? No absolutely not. But it puts things in perspective, and somewhat explains the magnitude of the situation.And the relative decline you mention is just that, relative. It doesn't mean that Britain is going to get poorer in nominal terms. In fact there is no bigger proof than this recession for how good growth in the developing world is for us. Without the Asian markets this recession would be worse. Economics is not a zero sum game. If we can manage to support growth in every country throughout the world then Britain will almost certainly benefit. So in fact we will most probably be able to afford better welfare and healthcare in the future. What we may have to face up to is less military and diplomatic power, unless we act more with the EU, NATO, UN or 'the West'.I also disagree about how much difference the governing party will make. It dictates where each pound goes, irrelative of how many pounds there actually are. It dictates when we start cutting spending and by how much. It dictates our nuclear capabilities. It dictates our stance toward electoral reform, towards the EU, and towards the US. It even dictates the level of confidence investors have in our economy, and hence how much speculation goes on about our weakness.

  • >The party that has unearthed the real problems in this country is the UK Independence Party. Politicians and their parties have lost sight of what the ordinary person expects from them. Our main problems are the economy, immigration and unemployment. Our enforced membership of the EU is a major cause of all these things – costing the UK around £45 million a day! This is money which would be better spent on education, NHS and creating a better future for the next generations of the UK. The EU governs our country, by making 75% of our laws, which we are unable to change. The LIB/LAB/CON all advocate our involvement in the EU – but won’t tell us why!!! They refuse to discuss the benefits British people receive, in return for our money. If it was important enough to promise a referendum, why have we not had one.It is impossible to control immigration when we are forced to allow migrants from 26 other EU countries to wander in and out of the UK as they like. There is no chance of operating a British jobs for British people policy. Look at the latest figures where over 95% of new jobs over the last 2 years have gone to foreign workers.UKIP advocate leaving the EU and operating with member countries on a free trade agreement much like Switzerland do. As we import more than we export to EU countries this would be a perfect arrangement and one that would not see the UK lose any trade or jobs through the withdrawal from the EU. At this election the three old failed parties, are not offering you a new direction, just a new manager!This year is the perfect opportunity for voters of the UK to send the establishment parties a serious message. The only party offering radical change is the UK Independence Party.

  • >First of all Steve, the UK receives the following benefits from the EU:Economic:. 3 million jobs rely on membership.. A majority of our trade is with the EU and irrelative of whether you can argue the impact of withdrawal will not be that big, trade relations are very likely to suffer.. An important reason why the UK is attractive to investors is that we belong to the Single Market (the world's largest free trade area).. Again because of the Single Market consumers have a much wider choice than they previously did, greater protection, and lower prices too.. Withdrawal from the EU is likely to followed by 'irrational speculation' by investors who think that membership is beneficial.. We have access to new markets in East Europe that are likely to grow in the near future.. We are entitled to, and have received, regional funding.. We gain from 'pooled sovereignty' in being able to shape economic decisions taken elsewhere in the EU. To take one example Sarkozy was forced to pursue less protectionist policies than he had wanted because of membership.International Affairs:. Day by day the UK is becoming a lesser power relative to the Newly Industrialised Countries. Yet together with the EU we can act with more power than even the US on some matters! This can clearly be seen with Chinese relations to the EU. Where the EU is prepared to act together the world listens.Security:. EU cooperation is essential to tackle international crime loops such as the group of Paedophiles broken up last year and referred to by Nick Clegg in one of the Prime Minister's debates.. No British soldiers can be sent anywhere without British permission. Yet the genocides of the 1990s in the Balkans were a shameful realisation of how we were acting together too little. As part of the EU we now have defence agreements to ensure rapid actions if ever such events take place again.. The EU is strongly committed to tackling environmental issues that cross borders. And thanks to EU membership our beaches, rivers and drinking water are cleaner.Peace and Co-operation:. The EU evolved out of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) set up after WW2. That body aimed to prevent another war, and today the EU still works towards that goal in fostering ever improving relations. Withdrawing will reverse that process.The single strongest reason for membership of the EU is that with or without us it is a power. If we are at the heart of it then we can shape it.

  • >Secondly, your figures are incorrect. The EU does not make 75% of our laws, and even if it did being a member means that we do have power to legislate on them. See this link for an explanation of how UKIP mis-interpreted a statement by Hans-Gert Pottering: http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2230The House of Commons Library has the figure at 9.1%. As the link says this doesn't include all laws. But the figure is unlikely to exceed 20%.Your statement that the parties won't tell us why they want to be in the EU is simply a lie. In fact even in the Prime Minister's debates they made a limited attempt at explaining why they want to be in the EU. And as for the referenda the Lib Dems advocate a referendum on whether we should leave, and the Conservatives advocate a referendum on every major treaty in the future.As for immigration it was this Labour Government that decided to let migrants from the newly accepted member states come straight away. Only one other country (I think, there may have been 2) did the same. Also, I am currently living in Luxembourg and so I am aware that the EU policy does not simply allow people to go and live wherever they want. In Luxembourg for instance it's very hard to get permission to permanently reside there without a job and/or Luxembourgish Spouse. So we can lower immigration within the EU!Could you tell me where you got the figure of 95% of jobs going to foreign workers? The figures have undoubtedly been high in the last decade, perhaps even more than 50%. But I'm also pretty sure they don't exceed 90%.

  • >Whenever i see the post like your's i feel that there are still helpful people who share information for the help of others, it must be helpful for other's. thanx and good job.Management Dissertation Proposal

  • >Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s