UK General election

[acker]

Originally Posted by Beny

I ( and others), would argue that the best system of goverment is a benevolant tyrany (runs smoother). Here we have a combination of both the benevolant tyrany (the queen must be benevolant or the people will get rid of her) and a democratic system (which tends to serve the majority rather than the whole state as it should). The tyrany is checking the democratic system... Best of both worlds if you ask me.

So what happens if nobody turns up to the polls??

What the f>>>> Beny

Sadam Hussien & Adolph Hitler started by offering "benevolent tyrany" or should I say "democratic autocracy" ; Your choice but my options. eg.. 1+1 = a (3) b (2+1) c (-3+ 6)

Or in other words Charles can dodge his taxes and rip off the government , cause he's heir apparent..

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Andy Mellon

And finally, in my opinion - and it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here - none of the parties in existence sit well with me. Can't vote for the tories as i can't agree with the way their policies seem to stir up intolerances between different peoples (immigrants mainly) and there's a lot of support for a small amount of xenophobia and jingoism. Labour - well In my opinion i could never, ever trust Tony Bliar again - even if he was in the right, the way he effectively censored the BBC was deplorable, and his support for the postal voting system which pretty much encourages election fraud is scandalous. The liberals - well, i'm fed up with Political Correctness for the sake of Political Correctness and think this would only get worse under the libs. Though, they are probably the best of a bad bunch.

Statistics show that at current rates over the next thirty years the population of the UK will grow by six million people. Five million of those will be immigrants.

That's a shabby old statistic there. Are these prime-of-life workers from foreign nations who will be paying for all our old age pensioners? Or perhaps they are merely replenishing the tax coffers for the reckless overspending of the "New" Labour party. So who will pay for these "British" people when they are all old...? Another twenty-five million immigrants?
Wow what a place London will be to live then. C'mon guys, can we spread them out a bit.

To me as a Londoner, it is irritating that two Scotsmen, Charles Kennedy and Tony Blair should say, how splendid the UK is now for all it's multi-culturalism. Well it's not really the UK is it? More like England and Wales and lowland Scotland. C'mon guys, let's spread them out a bit.

Do you suppose these two guys are "NIMBYs"? I wonder how Charley and Tone would feel if their beloved Inverness-shire and Edinburgh countrysides were inundated by new "British" citizens. Not in my backyard?

This is not xenophobia.

In this country - this green and pleasant country - it is impossible to be more than fifty miles away from the coast at any one point. That's a vague memory... I am prepared to give way to a more accurate figure.
But basically, this is not a very big country. If you want to stick an extra five million people into the country over the next thirty years, quite naturally they will gather nearer the South East than for instance the frozen North, which suggests that a very great deal of building on green belt land will take place. Thus destroying natural parks, woodland and sporting facilities. Spot the connection to cricket! Apart from anything else, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to destroy nature in this manner.

I would hate to think that in the near future, the only green spaces left in London are the Royal Parks, Regent's, St. James, Green, Hyde and Richmond. Surely it is just a matter of time before Mr. Blair suggests to various building contractors that Hackney Marshes (whoops no that's gone already) Putney Common, Hampstead Heath etc., would make ideal spots for new housing estates.

I would feel marginally less horrified by this "progress" if four million were moved to the North East of Scotland. Afterall while there are only about five small towns there, there are also very few aboriginals.

I would feel even less horrified if there was a little more control on immigration. The Australian method is probably over the top, but here we are way too lax.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Statistics show that at current rates over the next thirty years the population of the UK will grow by six million people. Five million of those will be immigrants.

That's a shabby old statistic there.

And it's simple scaremongering as well. (No offence to you, Ollie: I know you are just repeating a comment made by one of the leading candidates. But he's not talking statistics at all.) Let me elaborate just a little, then I'll leave it because it is a major issue in this campaign and, in my opinion, entirely wrongly so - so I'll let those who care about it discuss it instead of me.

What Michael Howard has done here is simply to take recent past data and extrapolate them over the next thirty years. He's taken no account of the fact that all modern history shows that migrations move in cycles**. If he had used exactly the same method to produce his claim only twenty years ago (i.e. to predict what the population would be by 2015) he would have been using as a base a period in which the UK's population was declining, and his predictions would have shown a reduction in population between 1985 and 2015 of about 5 million. No-one seriously expects that to happen, so why should anyone seriously expect the same discredited method of prediction to work now? As in many things, past performance is not necessarily a guide to future trends! One thing I'd be reasonably sure of though: if Howard gets elected, the population will decline. Why would anyone want come to the UK to live under his government?

** Note that's "in cycles", not "on cycles". Nothing to do with Norman Tebbit's bike.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

And it's simple scaremongering as well. (No offence to you, Ollie: I know you are just repeating a comment made by one of the leading candidates. But he's not talking statistics at all.) Let me elaborate just a little, then I'll leave it because it is a major issue in this campaign and, in my opinion, entirely wrongly so - so I'll let those who care about it discuss it instead of me.

What Michael Howard has done here is simply to take recent past data and extrapolate them over the next thirty years. He's taken no account of the fact that all modern history shows that migrations move in cycles**.
** Note that's "in cycles", not "on cycles". Nothing to do with Norman Tebbit's bike.

That's fine. But is it never possible to say: "Hold on guys, we're nearly full now."
As far as I'm concerned when contractors start building housing estates in flood plains - and we've been doing that terribly sensible thing for a few years now, isn't that a bit of a tell-tale sign?

The last three thousand years of history tends to show that migrations move in cycles - that's true. However when they do move they tend to move in a North Westerly direction, which usually appears to stop somewhere between Ramsgate, Cardiff and Manchester, though tending largely toward that South Eastern region. The Celts came from the East. The Roman's barely got beyond the Antoninus wall, and never got to Ireland. Attila came west. The Vikings founded Dublin but they weren't exactly empire builders. Gengis came west, the Goths and the Franks came west,
And if you don't take my word for it read the books of Colin McEvedy. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

[Occasional Fan]

All that's true Ollie. But someone ought to ask Mr Howard some quick questions: if he puts the lid on immigration - specifically unskilled immigration - who's going to clean up the hospitals for him? Who's going to do the hod-carrying and other unskilled work on all those building sites where he's going to expand the prison system? Come to that, who's going to do the work of the skilled tradesmen - plumbers, brickies, chippies - in the same places? Not the Brits: they either don't want to or can't. Why is my mate in Aberdeenshire hiring Poles and Czechs to drive the buses up there? Because he can't get Scotsmen who are either qualified or willing to do it!


For as long as I can remember, there have always been essential jobs which the Brits have not wanted to do or not been able to do, and there have always been immigrants to do them: London Transport and the NHS would have fallen apart years ago without an immigrant population, and not one which was selected for its ability to meet a points level due to professional education or experience. I just can’t see that changing any time soon.


Anyway, as I said above, I’ll leave this hot potato for others to deal with. For me, I’m just skipping over these pages in the manifestos – my blood pressure is high enough as it is.


Oh, yes: houses on flood plains? Stupid. Presumably done because that is the cheapest land and the only way to bring property prices even remotely in reach of Mr Average Joe. There’s another thing that needs fixing somehow – but leave it to the market, not the politicians. Eventually property prices in the UK will get back to something more sensible, I’m sure.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Without throwing a further spanner in the immigrtion works the problem lies elseware - everywhere in fact. There too many people in this big blue and green ball of ours, with not enough stuff. So they go where the "stuff" is. We have "stuff". We now have immigrants and vst quntities of old people using our limited "stuff". Solution ? You could pump more funds to corrupt govenments, or shoot people when they get to 30 like some 70s film I cant remember the name of.



"Stuff "is housing, food, health service, parking spaces, open spaces, broadband band width, bus queues and so on.

[Occasional Fan]

There are 651 people who became unemployed in the UK today with the official dissolution of Parliament, RBLC. What about making a start there?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Solution? You could pump more funds into corrupt govenments, or shoot people when they get to 30 like some 70s film I cant remember the name of.

"Stuff" is housing, food, health service, parking spaces, open spaces, broadband band width, bus queues and so on.

Logan's Run... starring Michael York(?) and Jenny Agutter. Hmmm lovely.

Yes, there is no solution. If everyone in the world was to live as well as we do in the western world then the world's resources would be stretched beyond it's capabilities.

There IS nothing sane that can be done to sort it out. Mr. Bush and future Western politicians need a total re-think regarding world resources, and certainly we should all live rather more frugally. I do feel that world citizens who live in and around the rain forests should not have national debts. We need rain forests. Having said that "GREED" is a terrible omnipresent trait. IF you start paying people for their resource, the fee keeps going up. A bit like oil really.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Thats it Logans Run ! I held off posting the above waiting gor the name to drop, but it just wouldnt. I can sleep easy now. Bush could get the bal rolling by signing the kyoto agreement, but as he thinks global warming is a myth dreamt up by spaced out , left wing drug fuelled scientists - he aint going to sign it.

By the way George, if you're watching, last saturday (2/4/05) it was 18c in my corner of south yorkshire. On thursday we had snow.

[Occasional Fan]

So, what you saying, RBLC, is that your corner of the planet done globally warmed up inside two days? Least ways, that's if your new style temperatures are as warm as they say they are. 18 Mercan degrees just ain't warm at all. Your snow is pretty cold too, right? We don't get much of that down Texas way, but Condi and Rummie say it happens in DC sometimes. Course, I'm usually vacationing between November and September, so I dunno if they're telling me the truth.

George