Labours contept for democracy.

[spindrift]

Election news:

 

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2010/04/23/huddersfield-plumber-and-leeds-united-fan-says-waste-your-vote-with-a-smile-as-he-enters-general-election-race-86081-26299793/

[Guest sibon]

The BNP has the best manifesto of all the parties http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8640896.stm

 

I particularly like their ideas on political reform such as devolving all powers properly capable of exercise to local level, reviving county council government.

 

It is interesting, I'll grant you. There are a fair few crazy ideas in there. I find that reassuring in a way. It is nice to know that the racial overtones are just part of a bonkers document.

 

Do you think that they costed any of it?

 

The whole thrust of their ideas seems to be spend, spend, spend. They seem to have forgotten that we also need to earn, earn, earn. Which makes their not-for-profit telecoms idea a bit stupid, to give you just one example of their idiocy.

[Guest sibon]

You cannot pick fault with the policies only the policy makers, and even then you rely on the generally bandied about garbage used by all anti-BNP people. They are Nazis; they want to somehow make their beliefs that whites are supreme reality (though not sure how they are supposed to achieve this).

Same rubbish over and over again whenever anyone mentions the party. But the only thing you can aim at their policies is your own beliefs that they are badly thought out.

 

.

 

The policy makers are a pretty repulsive bunch though.

 

As for the policies:

 

A ban on Muslim immigrants.

A repeal of the Race Relations Act.

A review of citizenship grants given in the last 13 years.

A ban on the building of Mosques.

 

They all seem pretty clearly racist policies to me. Indeed, they seem to be targetted at one group in particular. They are all in the manifesto.

 

You don't really seem interested in debating these issues DOA. You simply refuse to consider anyone else's position. Perhaps your mind is already made up and you are using this thread to justify your choice to yourself.

[GetItDone]

It is interesting, I'll grant you. There are a fair few crazy ideas in there. I find that reassuring in a way. It is nice to know that the racial overtones are just part of a bonkers document.

 

Do you think that they costed any of it?

 

The whole thrust of their ideas seems to be spend, spend, spend. They seem to have forgotten that we also need to earn, earn, earn. Which makes their not-for-profit telecoms idea a bit stupid, to give you just one example of their idiocy.

 

Billions of pounds can be saved by.....

 

Ending our involvment in Afghanistan

 

Ending immigration

 

Ending foreign aid

 

Leaving the European Union

 

Scrapping ID cards

[Guest sibon]

Billions of pounds can be saved by.....

 

Ending our involvment in Afghanistan

 

Ending immigration

 

Ending foreign aid

 

Leaving the European Union

 

Scrapping ID cards

 

From another viewpoint, billions of pounds could be removed from our economy by just these measures.

[spindrift]

Under BNP rule, Britain's status would be the equivalent of North Korea's.

 

Taken out of the EU.

 

Either taken out or thrown out of the Commonwealth. This alone would spark a constitutional crisis for the Queen, as she is still the Head of State for many of these nations. Could you imagine PM Nick Griffin at a Commonwealth meeting in some far flung land?

 

He would also need the troops back from Afghanistan to enforce his policies and to maintain order in the face of opposition back at home.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat - have you actually read the cited documents at all - I mean further than the title?

 

Let me point out one reference -

An inflow of 296000; outflow of 111000 which shows only a small inflow - until you read the bit that says 77000 of that 111000 return ( giving a total of how many actually leave?)

 

The projections and figures used are based on data from the International Passenger survey - not by the method of immigrants coming into the country who do not buy a ticket and travel first class on via the chunnel.

 

The IPS excludes most persons seeking asylim and some of the dependants of the above - thus omitting a large portion of immigrants.

 

The statements thereafter rely on if this happens and if that happens and assuming this and assuming that. Hardly reliable facts are they?

 

Let's assume and work on ifs and buts rather than on data that is accurate.

 

And that was just one of the sources mentioned on the site you sent me to.

 

I do not expect you to be able to give me absolute answers, and have no need of them. As I said - anyone can cook figures to suit.

 

I really do not care about the insults that keep getting worked over and over and over. I will make up my own mind based upon the statements I read as being what a party intentions are - based upon their manifesto. If that makes me sad or stupid well so be it. I would sooner be stupid and working on facts than gullible and joining in the people bashing some of the posters on SF enjoy so much.

 

This I believe is the reference that has confused you:

 

The most recent figures relate to the 2005 calendar year. They show a net inflow of 296,000 foreign-born migrants, a net outflow of 111,000 UK-born migrants and therefore an overall net inflow of 185,000 for the calendar year as a whole. 77,000 UK-born migrants returned to live in the UK after a year or more abroad.

 

It is fairly simple. 296k people came here, 110k people left = 185k net coming to the uk of which 77k were Uk born migrants returning.

 

It is pretty clear what they are saying.

 

What figures would you prefer they use if not IPS ones? They would seem to be the most sensible ones.

 

The calculation with respect to the £6 billion profit is adjusted for Asylum seekers, anyway. And since illegal immigrants that aren't captured have no access to social provision their impact on the economy can only be positive so their exclusion underestimates the figure used.

 

If you want to discuss the facts then you need to do a bit more than just reject out of hand evidence you don't like without suggesting any alernatives.

 

As for insults (apart from your lies), that is all I have had from you in this debate, if it can be called that.

[spindrift]

Dragon, you'been told more than a few times that the IPS counts samples at points of ingress to the UK, ports and airports. It is not a count of immigration because it counts everyone.

 

So, those figures you keep trumpeting include sun-tanned Brits returning home from holiday clutching a straw donkey and a bottle of sangria.

 

Now, since this has been explained to you before, why are you poppinh up once again to demonstrate nothing so much as the fact that you're posting a load of old trousers that you know isn't true?

[Phanerothyme]

Always one to support democratic pluralism, I see the Monster Raving Loony (William Hill) Party have a candidate in Hallam.

 

WHat! No OMRLP candidate, just one from the splitters.

 

Dark days.

[jobee]

It is interesting, I'll grant you. There are a fair few crazy ideas in there. I find that reassuring in a way. It is nice to know that the racial overtones are just part of a bonkers document.

 

Do you think that they costed any of it?

 

The whole thrust of their ideas seems to be spend, spend, spend. They seem to have forgotten that we also need to earn, earn, earn. Which makes their not-for-profit telecoms idea a bit stupid, to give you just one example of their idiocy.

 

 

Yes they had a ball didn't they. Blair was still borrowing when the economy was ok.

 

Official figures from last week showed that the government had run up total debts of £697.5bn, or 47.5% of GDP, by the end of 2008. That includes just over £100bn for the nationalisation of Northern Rock and the recapitalisation of Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

And it's gone up since then.