They're not voting because...
- I can't support my first choice: Conservatives...
I can't support my first choice: Conservatives - they have simply become too racist in their campaigning against immigration (and 'my grandmother died in the Holocaust' from Mr Howard does not prove the contrary. I won't support Labour because of Tony Blair. I won't support LibDems because of the unpleasant experience in my constituency: Dr Jenny Tonge MP, now retiring, but 'friend' of current candidate.written 18th Apr 2005
UKIP and Greens are obviously going nowhere.
Gavin replies: To be fair, the Tories do have the largest number of condidates from ethnic minorities of any of the parties. There has to be some kind of limit on the number of people who can flood our already overcrowded country - there's nothing racist about admitting that, is there?written 18th Apr 2005
Jax replies: That Jenny Tongue thing was a disgrace, I wrote to my Lib Dem MP about it although she could do nothing but tow the party line.written 18th Apr 2005
It's pretty sick but at least its the lesser of the evils. Generally speaking though the general attitude the Lib Dems have about openess are good and should be encouraged, the more votes they get the more other parties will want to emulate them (but hopefully not in the Jenny Tongue way)...
smiggins replies: No, nothing racist about asserting it per se.
The Tories' "it's not racist..." line is a time-honoured
political trick of objecting to something that no-one is actually suggesting. Of course it isn't actually racist to put limits on immigration, it would only be racist if the immigration rules were applied differently to different races.
Since we know full well what the Tories would actually do in power, i.e. break European immigration law for a start, it's probably fair enough to assert that they would also come up with a policy which is objectively racist in its implementation.written 18th Apr 2005
SDC replies: Out of interest, is 'our' country actually becoming more overcrowded? Is the population any larger than, say, 10 , 20 or 50 years ago?written 18th Apr 2005
The only justification for restricting immigration ought to be public health or national security. Apart from that, if people want to come here for a better life, then let them. The US has prospered on such an approach.
David Russell replies: We could always repeal the UK Act of Parliament that MAKES EU immigration law part of UK law. Sure the French wouldn't be pleased (where would all those tunnel-runners from Sangatte go?) but that's tough chips I'm afraid.written 18th Apr 2005
Jack replies: Why is it that every time the immigration issue comes up the tired old accusations of racism emerge? I'm voting for none of them but I applaud Howard for bringing it up. The fascists who are currently in office wouldn't have dared to. And if you don't like the word fascist look at Labour's record on repressive legislation. A third term will increase that arrogant removal of rights.
In debate there should be no subject off the agenda.written 18th Apr 2005
David replies: SDC ignores the fact that the US has a much lower population density that the UK. Japan has twice our population density and so allows very few immigrants to settle.written 18th Apr 2005
Both countries are rich, implying that a country can be wealthy with either policy.
Personally I want the next Government to either a) aim for zero net immigration or b) ensure that enough homes are built for net immigration to the UK. Sadly only UKIP with policy a) will do either.
Jo replies: just quickly, what was "That Jenny Tongue thing"?written 18th Apr 2005
Jax replies: Surely this is something we should hand over to Europe to ensure that a more efficient and fair Europe wide immigration policy can be acheived.written 18th Apr 2005
Andrew replies: To Jo (was wondering the same thing myself)
Jenny Tongue said if she was Palestinian she might have become a suicide bomber.
Top result on google for her name points to a BBC report on the storywritten 18th Apr 2005
SDC replies: Jenny Tonge specifically made remarks about Palestinian suicide bombers, in comments which on one construction (at least) suggested sympathy and understanding and approval.written 18th Apr 2005
On one view, she was only saying the unsayable: if people have no hope, and no means, you must expect them to resort to desperate means. But this was in the context of a woman who had made a series of uninformed, anti-Israel remarks over the years. There was very much a feeling of blaming Jews over Arabs; not the kind of informed neutrality with which to assist in the resolution of foreign conflicts.
Jax replies: Jenny Tongue said in an interview that she understood why Palestinians went suidice bombing, considering the oppression of Israel, this was off the record as well, I think she said she'd probably do the same thing if in the same situation or something like that.written 18th Apr 2005
She was promptly removed from the Lib Dem front bench.
Simone replies: I don't understand the whole problem with immigrants. We need economic immigrants -they do all the jobs, British born people reject. Our healthcare system would collapse without immigrants -nurses, careworkers, cleaners etc. We have an ageing population and so need young economic migrants working to boost the economy and carry the (financial) burden of looking after the elderly.written 18th Apr 2005
mehkri replies: Looking at remarks about Jenny Tongue, I realize how difficult it is to speak freely. Only politically right things are allowed at the front bench. One do recall that in 1947 to 1948, nearly all of the Jewish leadership was known as terrorist and wanted by British forces - only then terror laws were not as strict so they got away with it.written 18th Apr 2005
Vici replies: The whole immigration proble is based on ignorance and propoganda! There is no problem!! We need migrant workers and asylum seekers in the main (I am not naive enough to suggest that there aren't some who come for economic reasons) are here because they are fleeing persecution they would rather be at home in a country where they can speak their own language and live in their own culture! They in the main, want to work and to pay their way but due to current government policy are not allowed to do this!!written 18th Apr 2005
Tim Smith replies: To the original poster:
You won't vote Lib Dem because one of their former MPs said something you didn't like? Silly. You'd be voting for the Liberal Democrat Party, not for Jenny Tonge personally! The views of one woman who won't even be an MP in the next parliament are irrelevant to your vote (or should be.)
You won't vote UKIP or Green because they're 'going nowhere'? How do you know they're going nowhere? And how are they expected to go anywhere if you don't vote for them?
The election is not like betting on a horse race - it's not about backing the party you think will win! That's just sheer bandwagon-jumping and herd-following.
This election is about voting for a political party you would like to see form the next government. Whether they actually WILL form the next government is outside of your control - all you can do is cast your vote and let the rest of the electorate cast theirs. Vote for what you believe in!written 18th Apr 2005
chirpy replies: Taking a footpaths-only walk, as I once did, from the North Downs to the South Coast is a political revelation.
I wasn't expecting it (my companion & myself were just walking) but it palpably reveals how UNDER-populated this country actually is. And the South-East is supposed to be the most densely populated part of the UK! You can go for whole days without hardly seeing a soul.
Of course cities are over-populated, almost by definition. Because most of us live in cities, and travel most of the time by road, it usually seems like there are too many people. Motorways and major roads are cities on wheels.
This suits the purposes of the minute fraction of the population who own most of the land just fine. If you'd managed to cadge more than your fair share of what used to be a natural resource, wouldn't you want to propagate the idea that there's not nearly enough to go round?
Next time you're in a plane over Britain, take an extended look out the window and honestly ask yourself if most of what you see below looks over-populated.
And ask yourself whether contempt for incomers may not be like all contempt: mere self-contempt projected.
PS:written 18th Apr 2005
When it comes to Palestinians and "immigration,"
I seem to recall that in 1918 Jews constituted about 8 per cent of the total population, and most of them were indigenous Sephardic Jews who'd lived happily, for the most part, with their Arab neighbours for centuries.
The biggest single category of Israelis today are Russians. Sharon himself is of Russian extraction.
The Ghaza Strip . . . now there's a place that's densely populated!
Stevo replies: Simone: I'm afraid I don't share your view that we "need" economic migrants. I accept that there are some areas in this country where a certain skill is required and that the immigration of someone able to fill it would be an option. But we should always be the ones with our hands on the control valve. Simply letting in whoever wants to come here and then trying to find a doctor or scientist among them is a rather poor method of recruitment in my humble opinion.
You state that "they do all the jobs, British born people reject," and in this you are partly correct as they do indeed do many jobs which some of our own people who choose unemployment as a lifestyle choice rather than a temporary stopgap wouldn't touch with a bargepole. And it is those people who we need to encourage to get off their butts and start contributing to society rather than being a drain on it. I'd prefer to get these people motivated and out to work than import foreign labour which not only makes the indigenous unemployed feel even more disenfranchised, but strips developing countries of their own assets.
You are also working on the assumption that all immigrants to the UK are here to work hard and contribute to the fabric of our society. While I don't for one minute suggest that they're all bogus asylum-seekers and crooks (this country has a wonderfully diverse cross section of immigrants, many of whom have contributed vast amounts of money and resourses to this country), you have to look at the evidence of people arriving in this country, many of whom are single males, who simply disappear as soon as their applications are refused and either end up doing tax-free sweat shop or farm labour, or are inducted into gangs who specialise in large scale benefit fraud.
Then there are the many people who come here with diseases and illnesses which are untreatable or vastly expensive in their own country, and to whom the NHS offers a free way of being cured. Much as it is a sad thing for people to go untreated, we must not be made responsible for the world's ills and be the ones to pick up the tab for it. The NHS is already crassly poorly managed and sucks up money like a vast sponge. Making it possible for people to come here for free treatment is not only an insult to the tax payers of this country, but detrimental to those people who've paid into the system all their lives already awaiting treatment.written 20th Apr 2005
luther blissett replies: "we must not be made responsible for the world's ills". Sorry mate, but we are responsible for many of the world's ills. From the subjugation of Palestine by an occupying force, to the indo-pak crisis, Britain has historically been there, done that, got the resources, left the steaming pile of turds behind because we were too gutless to sort the situation out properly.
Whay are we all so well off in this country? Because we robbed it from elsewhere. We're all descended from the benefit-guzzling chavs that people like Stevo love to hate.
You want to know who's really dragging this country down? The rich fuckers who put their pounds in overseas bank accounts just because 10 million isn't enough. Do I need to rant about unpaid corporation tax and stolen common land again?
"you have to look at the evidence". You haven't got any evidence, just surmise and hearsay. Go fist yourself with it.written 22nd Apr 2005