Lib Dem manifesto

[stevegrant]

Well we've had a thread on the other two main parties, and the Lib Dems launched their manifesto this morning.

 

Seems to have been well-received in the media, but what does everyone else reckon?

[Johnny Bognor]

Couldn't find any spelling mistakes in the education section, so all in all far more professional than the Labour manifesto.

[benjii]

Did they?

 

Must've missed that...

[benjii]

Ahh, yes, I see it now.

 

"Fairer" Britain. Hopefully that means people getting what they deserve not what they want.

[Johnny Bognor]

It looks like they are going to save money by scrapping ID cards.

 

I didn't know we had any to be fair.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Lib/Dems are like those Sports reporters who pick their England teams before a big match, their sides never have to play. Same here, they could say what they want, as they'll never get to govern. The fight seats on the basis of which area they're in. Right wing agenda in Tory area, left in Labour.

 

We had them in power locally and the Council Tax went through the roof, luckily they got kicked out.

 

They need to make their position on any hung parliament clear. Clegg keeps saying that he'll leave it to the British people to decide.Seeing as they're are all for PR and every vote counts I presume that if the Tories get more votes than any other party, they'll refuse to get into bed with Labour. The electrol system in this country means that the Tories could get 1.5 million votes more than any other Party and still not have a majority. If this was the case how can the party of "every vote counts", prop up a Labour administration that got so many less votes.

 

They are getting way too much airtime for such a minority.

[saint_stevo]

link?

[stevegrant]

link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm

[stevegrant]

According to YouGov, they've got a fifth of the electorate at the moment, only 11 percentage points behind Labour.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The last elections in this country they got 13% of the vote, just over 2X's the BNP's vote.The last general election they got under 10% of the seats. Clegg will never be PM, so what he's doing on the Leader's debate is beyond me.

[bridge too far]

The last elections in this country they got 13% of the vote, just over 2X's the BNP's vote.The last general election they got under 10% of the seats. Clegg will never be PM, so what he's doing on the Leader's debate is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

 

Err - because he's a party leader :smt102

[Lord Duckhunter]

So is Lord Pearson, Caroline Lucas, and Nick Griffin. In fact Lord Pearson's party polled more votes than Clegg in the PR European elections. Only a potential PM should be allowed in the debates and I've got as much chance as becoming PM as Cleggy.

[bridge too far]

So is Lord Pearson, Caroline Lucas, and Nick Griffin. In fact Lord Pearson's party polled more votes than Clegg in the PR European elections. Only a potential PM should be allowed in the debates and I've got as much chance as becoming PM as Cleggy.

 

But these are the British elections - or had that fact escaped your myopic vision?

[Lord Duckhunter]

In the British elections they got under 10% of the seats.

 

 

 

Clegg will never be PM, so should not be in the debates.

[Johnny Bognor]

In the British elections they got under 10% of the seats.

 

 

Clegg will never be PM, so should not be in the debates.

 

Indeed. Shame they are not for "Proportional PR", because their current media share is far more than the other two parties when taking account of their percentage of votes.

 

So much for a fairer Britain. If they were really for a fairer Britain, they would withdraw from the leaders debates.

[bridge too far]

In the British elections they got under 10% of the seats.

 

 

 

Clegg will never be PM, so should not be in the debates.

 

And Cameron might not be. In fact, if there's a hung parliament with Labour having the greatest number of seats, Clegg might well have more influence than Cameron ever would.

 

As this is a possible scenario, it's only right that undecided voters should hear him out.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And Cameron might not be. In fact, if there's a hung parliament with Labour having the greatest number of seats, Clegg might well have more influence than Cameron ever would.

 

As this is a possible scenario, it's only right that undecided voters should hear him out.

 

 

Shouldn't they hear Peter Robinson as well, because the DUP could hold the balance of power.

 

If the Tories poll more votes than Labour, but fail to gain more seats, will Cleggy stick to his "every vote counts" prinicple, or will he abandon it in a rush for influence.

 

Surely the Party that "leaves those sort of decisions to the public", wont prop up a Labour administration, with less votes. Or will they enforce my long held belief that the Lib/Dems are far and away the most hypocritical party of the whole lot.

[Joensuu]

If the Tories poll more votes than Labour, but fail to gain more seats, will Cleggy stick to his "every vote counts" prinicple, or will he abandon it in a rush for influence.

 

Surely the Party that "leaves those sort of decisions to the public", wont prop up a Labour administration, with less votes. Or will they enforce my long held belief that the Lib/Dems are far and away the most hypocritical party of the whole lot.

 

Good Question. I would hope that Clegg will initially contact the party who have polled the highest, and try to broker a policy agreement. If an agreement can't be reached, he might turn to the second highest polling party. I can only hope that in the event of a hung parliament, Clegg sticks to his guns and forces the larger party to take a more rational economic line.

[View From The Top]

Good Question. I would hope that Clegg will initially contact the party who have polled the highest, and try to broker a policy agreement. If an agreement can't be reached, he might turn to the second highest polling party. I can only hope that in the event of a hung parliament, Clegg sticks to his guns and forces the larger party to take a more rational economic line.

 

The price that Lab/Con will have to pay is Cable making 11 Downing St his home.

[Johnny Bognor]

The price that Lab/Con will have to pay is Cable making 11 Downing St his home.

 

 

I could cope with Dave as PM and Cable in number 11.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The price that Lab/Con will have to pay is Cable making 11 Downing St his home.

 

He'll have to stick to the same line, rather than his present policy of flip flopping depending on who he's talking to.

 

The Tories will not enter such a pact, in my opinion.

 

As a PR supporter and completely against the "unfair first past the post system", what will Clegg do if Labour win more seats, but the Tories poll 1.5million more votes. Watch as he tries to justify doing a deal with Labour as they have the most seats. Surely a party as principled as the Lib/Dems who truely believe that "every vote counts", should deal with the party that polls the most votes.

[View From The Top]

He'll have to stick to the same line, rather than his present policy of flip flopping depending on who he's talking to.

 

The Tories will not enter such a pact, in my opinion.

 

 

The tories would sell their souls (those that have one left that is) to get power, same as Labour would.

 

Cable is the most astute and non flip flopping MP there is which is why he's respected across all parties.

 

Prehaps you should take off your blue tinted glasses and look at the real world for a change.

[Joensuu]

Surely a party as principled as the Lib/Dems who truely believe that "every vote counts", should deal with the party that polls the most votes.

 

Considering Clegg is towards the Right of the Lib Dems, he is more naturally going to side with Cameron than Brown. As Labour found out in 2003, it doesn't matter how principled the party, immoral decisions will be made are if you are led by a Tory in disguise...

[Saintandy666]

Last Election:

 

Labour: 35.3%

Tory: 32.3%

Lib Dem: 22.1%

 

Clearly they do deserve to be in any debate...

[solentstars]

good manifesto best so far .

its nice to see the tories and labour supporters running scared.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Cable is the most astute and non flip flopping MP there is which is why he's respected across all parties.

 

.

 

 

 

In 2008 he was asked about Mr Browns backing for the bank takeovers he said“We have no quarrel with what he did. That seemed the right approach",Yet a mere four months later that had changed , he admitted: “It’s fair to say I did change my position on that issue.”

 

At the Lib Dem conference in September 2008 he said “The Government must not compromise the independence of the Bank of England by telling it to slash interest rates.”. Within weeks it had changed to “the Chancellor should urge the Governor of the Bank to make a large cut in interest rates”.

 

 

In January last year he called the governments decision to print more money “The Robert Mugabe school of economics” Then just nine months later He backtracks by saying it is right by saying “there is a Robert Mugabe school but if I gave that impression I was wrong”

 

He was also part of the Lib/Dem establishment that covered up Charles Kennedy's illness. He was quite prepared to allow someone with those health problem become Prime Minister.

[dune]

Does it mention that the Liberals want even more immigrants? In the interview with Jeremy Paxman Clegg said we need more immigrants in Lincolnshire (despite the BNP's growing popularity in safe Tory areas) and in Scotland. Also does it mention that they will give an amnesty on all illegal immigrants who've managed to remain undetected for 10 years?

[bungle]

Does it mention that the Liberals want even more immigrants? In the interview with Jeremy Paxman Clegg said we need more immigrants in Lincolnshire (despite the BNP's growing popularity in safe Tory areas) and in Scotland. Also does it mention that they will give an amnesty on all illegal immigrants who've managed to remain undetected for 10 years?

 

Yes. Very important policy.

[stevegrant]

Yes. Very important policy.

On what grounds? Surely an illegal immigrant is still in this country illegally, regardless of whether they've been here 10 minutes or 10 years?

[CB Saint]

Their plans to more than double capital gains tax suck. Why should someone who takes a risk and sets up a business, investing their own money (which has already been taxed), creates jobs, wealth and tax revenues be penalised if they are lucky enough to make a bit of money buy selling their business.

[SuperMikey]

On what grounds? Surely an illegal immigrant is still in this country illegally, regardless of whether they've been here 10 minutes or 10 years?

 

Yes, but the policy states that if they're an illegal immigrant who is working and making a contribution to the economy and if they've been here for a period of about 10 years, then they can stay. Taking vital workers out of the economy at the moment would be ludicrous, it's the immigrant workers that run this country. This is a 'what's happened has happened' policy, you may have entered the country illegally, but you're now making a contribution to the country so you can stay.

 

I'm not a Lib Dem because of the politicians involved in this (although I do like most of them), i'm a fan because of their sensible policies. It's a good, strong manifesto they've put out and hopefully Nicky boy can go and win some more votes later tonight.

[Causer]

The lib dems had some good ideas in their manifesto, but also some absoloutely shocking ideas including the virtual abolition of academies and ruling out military force against Iran in the future. Now I'm not some neocon itching for a war with Iran but surely it makes sense not to rule out that option incase we were attacked.

[MorningtonCrescent]

Yes, but the policy states that if they're an illegal immigrant who is working and making a contribution to the economy and if they've been here for a period of about 10 years, then they can stay. Taking vital workers out of the economy at the moment would be ludicrous, it's the immigrant workers that run this country. This is a 'what's happened has happened' policy, you may have entered the country illegally, but you're now making a contribution to the country so you can stay.

 

So, does this approach set a precedent? Will people have a "right" to stay in the future because they can prove they have "evaded" detection for 10 years, and therefore have "earnt" the same right to stay?

 

There are many "illegals" who work hard and contribute to the UK economy, but that surely doesn't make it right to allow them to stay?

 

I'm not saying they should all be immediately deported either, just not sure a "black and white" policy that sets a dangerous precedent is sensible either.

 

???

[SuperMikey]

So, does this approach set a precedent? Will people have a "right" to stay in the future because they can prove they have "evaded" detection for 10 years, and therefore have "earnt" the same right to stay?

 

There are many "illegals" who work hard and contribute to the UK economy, but that surely doesn't make it right to allow them to stay?

 

I'm not saying they should all be immediately deported either, just not sure a "black and white" policy that sets a dangerous precedent is sensible either.

 

???

 

Clegg made the point in his interview with Jeremy Paxman the other day that it would be virtually impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in the country and deport them. Whether you like it or not, we do need these low-grade workers here in this country, as they're the ones doing the job that nobody else wants to do. Go to any industrial fruit farm etc in the summer, and you won't see groups of jolly children picking the strawberries, it'll be droves of migrant workers scraping together enough money to feed themselves and their families.

 

I think what the Lib Dems are trying to promote with this policy is a 'blank slate'. They're saying; "You've been here for 10+ years, you're contributing to the economy, so you can stay and we'll gloss over the fact that you came here illegally", because they are needed. We may have 2m+ unemployed in this country, but I can't see any redundant software developers or physiotherapists cleaning public toilets any time soon. We're not a primary and secondary state anymore, the general public now works in jobs that are tertiary or quaternary, and it's up to the illegal immigrants and other migrant workers to come in and do the jobs that we don't do anymore.

[stevegrant]

All of which says more about the state of our society than anything else, really...

 

There needs to be an incentive for those on JSA to take jobs like that rather than remain on handouts from the state, rather than just sweeping the acts of a load of criminals (which is essentially what they are) under the carpet. As MC said above, it sets a rather dangerous precedent - as long as they're doing a job that nobody else seems to want, we'll let them do what they like.

[View From The Top]

All of which says more about the state of our society than anything else, really...

 

There needs to be an incentive for those on JSA to take jobs like that rather than remain on handouts from the state, rather than just sweeping the acts of a load of criminals (which is essentially what they are) under the carpet. As MC said above, it sets a rather dangerous precedent - as long as they're doing a job that nobody else seems to want, we'll let them do what they like.

 

I'm not sure it's those on JSA that are the real issue but those on IS and DA.

[stevegrant]

I'm not sure it's those on JSA that are the real issue but those on IS and DA.

You're probably right, although the principle still applies, IMO

[dune]

Yes. Very important policy.

 

It's an ill thought out policy. Giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants is like paying a randsom to hostage takers. If you go down such roads you will encourage it to happen more.

[View From The Top]

It's an ill thought out policy. Giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants is like paying a randsom to hostage takers. If you go down such roads you will encourage it to happen more.

 

This is one of the few times I'll agree with you Stanley.

[SuperMikey]

It's an ill thought out policy. Giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants is like paying a randsom to hostage takers. If you go down such roads you will encourage it to happen more.

 

Clegg said we need a reduction of immigrants in some areas, but more in others, and he has a point. Two examples he gave were in Inverness and Lincolnshire, and there are many other areas in the country where labourers are needed. The execution of the policy will control the movement of these immigrants too, so they can't go walkabout as their sponsor will inform the authorities and they won't be able to work legally in another area unless they get a new permit granted.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The execution of the policy will control the movement of these immigrants too, so they can't go walkabout as their sponsor will inform the authorities and they won't be able to work legally in another area unless they get a new permit granted.

 

Sounds like a BNP policy to me. Will there be check points on the roads out of the areas they're allowed in?

 

They only have to disappear for a few years, and they'll then get an amnesty

 

The "policy" is just a way of "connecting" with voters that are both left and right.In reality it's unworkable

[SuperMikey]

Sounds like a BNP policy to me. Will there be check points on the roads out of the areas they're allowed in?

 

They only have to disappear for a few years, and they'll then get an amnesty

 

The "policy" is just a way of "connecting" with voters that are both left and right.In reality it's unworkable

 

It's not like there's going to be a gestapo force tracking immigrants, what I was trying to say was that they won't be able to go anywhere else because they won't be able to work anywhere where their permit doesn't allow. Their job and home will be in a certain area, and that's where they'll stay, because it makes the most sense.

[dune]

It's not like there's going to be a gestapo force tracking immigrants, what I was trying to say was that they won't be able to go anywhere else because they won't be able to work anywhere where their permit doesn't allow. Their job and home will be in a certain area, and that's where they'll stay, because it makes the most sense.

 

Are you talking about EU or non EU migrants?

[SuperMikey]

Are you talking about EU or non EU migrants?

 

Non-EU. I advise that you rewatch the Paxman vs Clegg interview, as NC is probably a lot better at explaining the policy than I am.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's not like there's going to be a gestapo force tracking immigrants, what I was trying to say was that they won't be able to go anywhere else because they won't be able to work anywhere where their permit doesn't allow. Their job and home will be in a certain area, and that's where they'll stay, because it makes the most sense.

 

It's like most of the Lib/Dems policies, unworkable.

 

Can they live in another area and commute Mon-Fri?

 

What if the firm they're working for relocates to an area where there are already too many immigrants, wont they lose their job?.

 

If they've worked in this "allowed immigrant" area for 10 years, can they then be part of the amnesty, or do you have to be an illigal to take advantage of that?

 

If they have children, do the children have to stick to these "allowed zones" or can they get jobs anywhere?

[Thedelldays]

imgine if the BNP said immigrants were only allowed in certain areas of the country...

[View From The Top]

imgine if the BNP said immigrants were only allowed in certain areas of the country...

 

As I understood it it was about incentivising (non EU) immigrants to settle in areas that they wouldn't normally consider but where the need for people is evident.

 

Most end up in the cities where a community, same as theirs at "home", is already established.

 

I believe it's roughly modelled on the Oz approach.

[bungle]

It's like most of the Lib/Dems policies, unworkable.

 

Can they live in another area and commute Mon-Fri?

 

What if the firm they're working for relocates to an area where there are already too many immigrants, wont they lose their job?.

 

If they've worked in this "allowed immigrant" area for 10 years, can they then be part of the amnesty, or do you have to be an illigal to take advantage of that?

 

If they have children, do the children have to stick to these "allowed zones" or can they get jobs anywhere?

 

So unworkable that Canada and Australia use similar regional polices? The board racist dune practically jizzes his pants when told about Aussies and immigration, yet if we copy them it is a different story. Still, he is merely a simple racist.

[Lord Duckhunter]

As I understood it it was about incentivising (non EU) immigrants to settle in areas that they wouldn't normally consider but where the need for people is evident.

 

.

 

I presume there's no unemployment in these areas then and nobody on benefit, where is this Utopia?

 

If they then move into the Cities, that are overcrowded, are the Lib/Dems going to deport them, or forceable move them back to their allowed zones?

[Lord Duckhunter]

So unworkable that Canada and Australia use similar regional polices? The board racist dune practically jizzes his pants when told about Aussies and immigration, yet if we copy them it is a different story. Still, he is merely a simple racist.

 

I am no racist.

 

Perhaps you could answer the questions.

 

What happens if a worker has a permit to work in Dorset. Can he live in London and commute to Dorset?

 

What happens if he starts work in Bristol, will he be forceable removed (ala BNP) from the Country?

 

What if he's a roofer and his boss gets a roofing job in London, does the boss have to lay him off and employ someone with a permitt to work in London?

 

If this man has a child, upon reaching 16 can the child work anywhere or does he have to stick to Dorset?