The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Toffeelover]

On the subject of immigration, it basically falls into 4 categories:-

1) Illegal immigrants are a constant concern, many get in despite the controls. When they get in , invariably they chuck any documents away so deportation is awkward if it is not known where they come from, and usually invoke some aspect of the HR legislation to stay here. Most if not all have no skills other than to be employed in a physical capacity.

2) Asylum Seekers, this is a ridiculous situation, they claim to be in physical peril but many are no more than economic migrants looking for a better life and believe it is here. As with the above many have no skills to be of benefit to this country and usually hide behind the HR rules to stay here. What I cannot understand or go along with is why allow such people in, in the first place when they come from countries which have no historical or economic connection with the UK!

3) Immigrants from out side the EU. They are usually skilled or very skilled so would be of benefit, not sure to be honest if we have in place a points or quota system now for this category. Should we have such that is the point? and should we adopt the Australian model of only allowing those in with certain skills? Should we also make it clear do not come here unless you have a job lined up?

4) EU migrants, they are no doubt about it, economic migrants. Problem is they cannot be refused entry under EU law whether they have a job or not. That would require a change in EU law which is not going to happen unless the likes of Germany, France, The Low Countries get on board. This where DC and his referendum come into play, change the rules or we exit, exit would solve the problem. To say benefits will be restricted or with held is an empty threat. No way could the people be allowed to starve, they could claim for emergency funds from the government to be able to survive.

Overall it really is a can of worms and no party has come up with any meaningful message on the subject. Ignore UKIP about coming out of the EU and banning immigration, nonsense and not worth the paper it is written on. To totally ban immigration would be harmful to the country.

I cannot see any solution on illegals if we do not know their country of origin, if we do then they should be deported full stop. Legislation such as the HR should be amended. Same for asylum seekers, the message should get across you have to prove your life is in danger.

EU immigrants cannot be stopped unless a law is changed to deny them entry or leave the EU, once they are in it is virtually impossible to know where they are. The government though would have a record of benefits paid out and to me it should be claimed back from the EU to impose the bill on the country of origin. I think it is nonsense to claim benefits such as child allowance here and send the money back home!

As for all over immigrants they should not be let in without a visa, tourist or working with a time limit on them.

They are my views on this subject, okay a long post but not a simple subject.

However interms of importance in the coming election it is nothing compared to the real matter of the NHS. That for me is the most important matter to be dealt with no question about that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not at first, perhaps. But you know and I know that private enterprise is always looking to expand into any market it sees as profitable, often deviously, always amorally.

As an exponent of private enterprise myself, I wouldn't say I act either deviously or amorally. Of course that's not to say all will behave well, as sadly you get bad people in all walks of life. They shouldn't cause us to cast aspersions on the rest though.

 

[daylightrobber]

Referendums have their place. They are for issues that shouldn't be a general election issue but rather for things that have cross-party support but there's an awareness that the general public don't share that view. For example, Labour back the NHS but want to stay in Europe - there's plenty of people who back the NHS, but DON'T want to stay in Europe, so what are they supposed to do in a general election, vote for loons like UKIP as they're the only party wanting out?

There should be a referendum on Europe if another treaty comes about that changes the power balance in any way. This should have happened after the Lisbon Treaty, and it certainly should happen for any in the future.

I think that's fair comment but when the outcome of a referendum results in it all going tits up we can hardly vote the general public out of office. More's the pity.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think that's fair comment but when the outcome of a referendum results in it all going tits up we can hardly vote the general public out of office. More's the pity.

Surely if we can't rely on the public to vote in a referendum, then we can't rely on them to vote in a general election either?

 

[Toffeelover]

I'd be amazed if it was anything but a minority Labour government backed by the SNP at this point. The Tories won't be able to match that, and their Plan B of having the Lib Dems sell out their party values to prop them up again is both impractical in terms of seats and intolerable for their party membership this time. Clegg will be gone anyway.

So we'll have a situation where even if the Tories have the most seats and tried to go with a minority, the first time they tried to get a major issue through the commons, SNP and Labour would force the dissolution of parliament even if they didn't have a formal agreement, as Labour will vote against the Tories as per and the SNP will vote against absolutely everything they do.

That indeed could well be the scenario that awaits the Country in May, I think we all know that for the most part the SNP will focus their support on getting more for Scotland at the expense of the rest of the UK if it came down to a choice.

If the Scotland debate was followed closely and reading between the lines so to speak there was an intimation of seeking another Independence Referendum in this parliament.

 

[Clint Planet]

As an exponent of private enterprise myself, I wouldn't say I act either deviously or amorally. Of course that's not to say all will behave well, as sadly you get bad people in all walks of life. They shouldn't cause us to cast aspersions on the rest though.

I'm not talkng about individuals, as you well know, so stop acting the wounded victim. I'm talkng about a system which seeks out profit, often at the expense of most people's greater good, and which seeks to open up any market it sees as profitable. I don't blame tigers for acting like tigers - they are what they are - but I wouldn't let them roam the streets unchecked.

 

[Toffeelover]

Not at first, perhaps. But you know and I know that private enterprise is always looking to expand into any market it sees as profitable, often deviously, always amorally.

Clint the only purpose of being in business whether as Self-employed or a company is to make money so if there is a prospect of making more money then those avenues will be explored. I would not say it is often done deviously or Amorally though but there will be some nefarious dongs.

 

[Joey66]

Maybe he has more integrity about him than to openly lie about what he will and will not do.

I do agree to an extent, especially with immigration and EU membership high on voter topics it's a dangerous game not offering a referendum. Ed's took a risk but if he gets in it will be a calculated one that has benefits - ie no referendum looming over half his term in office. Cameron pretty much had to offer one with UKIP (And parts of his own party) breathing down his neck.

Integrity

Surely if we can't rely on the public to vote in a referendum, then we can't rely on them to vote in a general election either?

Why were the SNP allowed a referendum then?

 

[Clint Planet]

Can I be clear here, by the way. I said capitalism is an amoral beast, not an immoral one. The two things are different.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not talkng about individuals, as you well know, so stop acting the wounded victim. I'm talkng about a system which seeks out profit, often at the expense of most people's greater good, and which seeks to open up any market it sees as profitable. I don't blame tigers for acting like tigers - they are what they are - but I wouldn't let them roam the streets, unchecked.

what do you think companies are if they're not a bunch of individuals? Are people regular folks outside of work hours and then rapacious pigs from 9-5?

I'm going into BIS on Friday. I'll make sure to check the cage for you

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Why were the SNP allowed a referendum then?

I'd be quite happy to give people a choice over as much of their life as possible, but I'm not sure that would be all that popular.

 

[Clint Planet]

lol what do you think companies are if they're not a bunch of individuals? Are people regular folks outside of work hours and then rapacious pigs from 9-5?

I'm going into BIS on Friday. I'll make sure to check the cage for you

Ho hum.

 

[daylightrobber]

Surely if we can't rely on the public to vote in a referendum, then we can't rely on them to vote in a general election either?

With a General Election it is possible to vote for a different party the next time around. If the decisions made were bad ones then the people who made them can be held to account. With referenda, invariably the constitution will change, making it harder to undo any potential mess. It's not like there'll definitely be the opportunity to have another referendum to reverse any decision, as options may well be out of the hands of the nation.

 

[The Esk]

It could be, but then nothing I've seen in the documents released by the EU about TTIP suggests that privatisation is going to occur either.

Seriously?

There are literally hundreds of papers on the subject of whether or not the UK and other European Governments will grant "market access" to foreign companies in the area of health. The granting of market access is by definition allowing foreign companies to bid and tender for health service contracts.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Seriously?

There are literally hundreds of papers on the subject of whether or not the UK and other European Governments will grant "market access" to foreign companies in the area of health. The granting of market access is by definition allowing foreign companies to bid and tender for health service contracts.

Being able to bid doesn't mean the buyer is duty bound to accept their bid though does it? If it means that there is a greater pool of potential suppliers then that seems a positive thing to me. It's only if the NHS (or whomever) is duty bound to accept any bid from any organisation that lodges a tender. I'd be amazed if that latter circumstance was even close to being the case.