General Election 2010

[Craig 6317]

There was speculation yesterday that The Sun had offered Mrs Duffy £50,000, or even £75,000 for her story. It is more probable that The Sun's offer was in the range of £25,000 to £30,000 – which must still have sounded like riches to a pensioner who has worked all her life on relatively modest wages. But Mrs Duffy turned it down. Reputedly, The Sun, which has been campaigning aggressively since last October for a Conservative victory, wanted her to attack Gordon Brown in unrestrained language and declare her support for David Cameron but, after a lifetime's allegiance to the Labour Party, she would not do it.

 

Another rumour is that Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor who is David Cameron's link with the Murdoch empire, contacted Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of Murdoch's company, News International, to say that it would not help the Tory cause if The Sun pushed its suit too hard. Coulson's reasoning was that Labour was in such a mess after Gordon Brown's gaffe that it would pay to leave them dangling in the wind rather than give them a pretext for claiming that Mrs Duffy was party to a Tory-orchestrated media conspiracy.

 

Even without the involvement of The Sun, the presence of a man from Bell Pottinger set off conspiracy theories. The agency was founded in 1987 by Tim Bell, Margaret Thatcher's advertising guru, who advised her through the victorious 1979 election campaign. The chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, Peter Bingle, is a Tory activist who wrote a jubilant blog yesterday, jokily suggesting: "There is a strong case for giving Gillian Duffy a peerage. She has revealed the true Gordon Brown."

 

 

She turned down the money.

Nice to hear. Makes Brown seem even more of a prick for having a pop at her like.

 

Aye, well done Mrs Duffy for keeping her integrity. I don't think Brown was being malicious but he must feel like a complete tit over this mess.

 

Turned down the Sun but sold it instead to the Mail on Sunday by all accounts. All will be revealed on Sunday morning I guess.

Tbf, I don't blame her and would still respect her if it's a case of telling the truth in the MoS as opposed to being told what to say by The Sun.

 

Agreed. There's no fucking way on god's green earth that the Sun would have portrayed anything other than a crucifixion of Brown whether she said it or not.

 

For the record, what are considered the political allegiences of the papers this time round? Evidently The Sun and The Telegraph are pro-Tory and I suspect from glancing over someone's copy of it this morning, the Express is the same way.

 

Mirror no doubt backing Labour but what about the rest?

[Guest alex]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

 

They were, but while all the others had the no vacancy signs up, the "rush" came here instead. This not only caused a great deal of problems for a lot of communities (granted we see little of it up here), but also allowed made immigration a big political problem when it need not have been.

 

By the time the otheres took down their full up signs, the damage was done.

 

Surely the "rush" was more to do with the perceived inclusiveness of the UK and that many immigrants speak (pigeon) English already.

 

 

Yes, but had we done as our fellow europeans had done....They wouldnt have got in.

Well, they might have just waited.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

10 Reasons to leave the EU

 

1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.

 

2. In 2010 our gross contribution to the EU budget will be £14 billion. To put this figure in context, all the reductions announced by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference would, collectively, save £7 billion a year across the whole of government spending.

 

3. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.

 

4. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.

 

5. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.

 

6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.

 

7. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.

 

8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.

 

9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.

 

10. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.

[Guest alex]

Source?

Anyway, did anyone catch the leader of UKIP on breakfast telly the other day? He made some decent points but that Sian what's her face, who is hardly Jeremy Paxman tripped him up as soon as she asked where his 1/3 costs cuts to the NHS (supposedly without removing any frontline staff) would come from. I suppose you can pledge anything when you've as much chance as the Monster Raving Looney Party of getting in.

[Renton 17876]

There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit.

 

Which party was it that signed up to the Maastricht Treaty?

 

 

It was a serious point not a party point scoring jobby

 

Well being serious then. What do you think the EU will say if we go to them and ask to pull out of everything except the free trade market? And also what do you think it would do for British business? I wouldn't end well.

 

Apparently the EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries that are not part of the EU.

 

UKIP says on this.......

 

UKIP would set up a Commonwealth Free Trade Area (CFTA). Given the extraordinary economic power of the Commonwealth, such a bloc would be a global economic sensation. It could also interlock with other trade blocs to enhance global trade and prosperity. UKIP would retain friendly and profitable trade relationships with EU countries after withdrawal. UKIP would sign a UK-EU Free Trade deal, similar to the free trade deals the EU has with over 50 other non-EU countries but as its largest trading partner.

 

Have they asked the other Commonwealth countries about this? Why on Earth would we want to increase trade with a heterogenous mix of countries that are thousands of miles away based purely on historical reasons. And at the same time cut us off from our Geographical neighbours - the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market. Once again, why don't you think the tories embrace this if it were remotely feasible - don't you agree it's a vote winner?

 

Trusting UKIP to make policies on Europe is a bit like asking a paedophile to reform child protection laws.

 

 

Why not try thinking for yourself rather than simply repeating years of what you've heard?

 

Can you explain this sentence?

 

the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market.

 

Neither of us are economists, so no, off the top of my head I couldn't list the differences, but they are different, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. I actually found this wiki article on the European Union, and its subarticles, very enlightening (increasingly I'm growing to respect wiki as a good source of reliable information, better than newspaper articles or political manifestos anyway). It seems to me that it would be hugely detrimental to effectively go it alone, an opinion which is almost universal amongst anlaysts and mainstream politicians - including those from your party.

 

At the end of the day the political parties all agree on keeping the status quo (except the loonys). For largely idealogical reasons, I'd like us to ultimately be in the euro, and I suspect you'd like us out of the it altogether. Fair enough, neither of us will get what we want so we live with the compromise.

 

 

To be honest im not euro sceptic and like you have really not given it much thought.

 

However having given it some thought today, i seem to be struggling to find a list of benefits for staying v going, particularly given the Norway and Sweden stances.

 

I guess im coming at it from why do we need ANOTHER parliament to make up police and pass laws. As it stands we have less than 10% representation within that parliament anyway.

 

Why do we / you feel a bunch of germans / italians / french etc can make better laws for us than our own politicians.

 

If you do then doesnt that point to a problem with our system.

 

Sweden is a fully paid up memeber of the eurozone isn't it?

 

Can I freely move sticks and live in Norway, benefit from their health and social care? I doubt that somehow, maybe somebody can enlighten me regarding this.

 

I basically agree with what NJS has said about the EU.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Source?

Anyway, did anyone catch the leader of UKIP on breakfast telly the other day? He made some decent points but that Sian what's her face, who is hardly Jeremy Paxman tripped him up as soon as she asked where his 1/3 costs cuts to the NHS (supposedly without removing any frontline staff) would come from. I suppose you can pledge anything when you've as much chance as the Monster Raving Looney Party of getting in.

 

 

It was from the Telegraph but I knew if I put that in some of the socialists wouldnt have read it.

 

Im not saying its particularly right or wrong, more so that as demonstrated in this thread, a lot of us just take it for granted because its always been that way.

 

I always like the UKIP leader Nigel fer.... when he's on question time. He does quite often talk a lot of sense its just a shame as you say he's in a no win party.

[Renton 17876]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

[Renton 17876]

Source?

Anyway, did anyone catch the leader of UKIP on breakfast telly the other day? He made some decent points but that Sian what's her face, who is hardly Jeremy Paxman tripped him up as soon as she asked where his 1/3 costs cuts to the NHS (supposedly without removing any frontline staff) would come from. I suppose you can pledge anything when you've as much chance as the Monster Raving Looney Party of getting in.

 

 

It was from the Telegraph but I knew if I put that in some of the socialists wouldnt have read it.

 

Im not saying its particularly right or wrong, more so that as demonstrated in this thread, a lot of us just take it for granted because its always been that way.

 

I always like the UKIP leader Nigel fer.... when he's on question time. He does quite often talk a lot of sense its just a shame as you say he's in a no win party.

 

I can't stand UKIP. Right wing branch of the Conservative party - basically a bunch of white, middle-aged, xenophobic, misogynist wankers.

[Guest alex]

Source?

Anyway, did anyone catch the leader of UKIP on breakfast telly the other day? He made some decent points but that Sian what's her face, who is hardly Jeremy Paxman tripped him up as soon as she asked where his 1/3 costs cuts to the NHS (supposedly without removing any frontline staff) would come from. I suppose you can pledge anything when you've as much chance as the Monster Raving Looney Party of getting in.

 

 

It was from the Telegraph but I knew if I put that in some of the socialists wouldnt have read it.

 

Im not saying its particularly right or wrong, more so that as demonstrated in this thread, a lot of us just take it for granted because its always been that way.

 

I always like the UKIP leader Nigel fer.... when he's on question time. He does quite often talk a lot of sense its just a shame as you say he's in a no win party.

Their policies are a joke though so I can't really agree with that.

[Guest alex]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU countries could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

Edited April 30, 2010 by alex

[Christmas Tree 3997]

There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit.

 

Which party was it that signed up to the Maastricht Treaty?

 

 

It was a serious point not a party point scoring jobby

 

Well being serious then. What do you think the EU will say if we go to them and ask to pull out of everything except the free trade market? And also what do you think it would do for British business? I wouldn't end well.

 

Apparently the EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries that are not part of the EU.

 

UKIP says on this.......

 

UKIP would set up a Commonwealth Free Trade Area (CFTA). Given the extraordinary economic power of the Commonwealth, such a bloc would be a global economic sensation. It could also interlock with other trade blocs to enhance global trade and prosperity. UKIP would retain friendly and profitable trade relationships with EU countries after withdrawal. UKIP would sign a UK-EU Free Trade deal, similar to the free trade deals the EU has with over 50 other non-EU countries but as its largest trading partner.

 

Have they asked the other Commonwealth countries about this? Why on Earth would we want to increase trade with a heterogenous mix of countries that are thousands of miles away based purely on historical reasons. And at the same time cut us off from our Geographical neighbours - the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market. Once again, why don't you think the tories embrace this if it were remotely feasible - don't you agree it's a vote winner?

 

Trusting UKIP to make policies on Europe is a bit like asking a paedophile to reform child protection laws.

 

 

Why not try thinking for yourself rather than simply repeating years of what you've heard?

 

Can you explain this sentence?

 

the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market.

 

Neither of us are economists, so no, off the top of my head I couldn't list the differences, but they are different, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. I actually found this wiki article on the European Union, and its subarticles, very enlightening (increasingly I'm growing to respect wiki as a good source of reliable information, better than newspaper articles or political manifestos anyway). It seems to me that it would be hugely detrimental to effectively go it alone, an opinion which is almost universal amongst anlaysts and mainstream politicians - including those from your party.

 

At the end of the day the political parties all agree on keeping the status quo (except the loonys). For largely idealogical reasons, I'd like us to ultimately be in the euro, and I suspect you'd like us out of the it altogether. Fair enough, neither of us will get what we want so we live with the compromise.

 

 

To be honest im not euro sceptic and like you have really not given it much thought.

 

However having given it some thought today, i seem to be struggling to find a list of benefits for staying v going, particularly given the Norway and Sweden stances.

 

I guess im coming at it from why do we need ANOTHER parliament to make up police and pass laws. As it stands we have less than 10% representation within that parliament anyway.

 

Why do we / you feel a bunch of germans / italians / french etc can make better laws for us than our own politicians.

 

If you do then doesnt that point to a problem with our system.

 

Sweden is a fully paid up memeber of the eurozone isn't it?

 

Can I freely move sticks and live in Norway, benefit from their health and social care? I doubt that somehow, maybe somebody can enlighten me regarding this.

 

I basically agree with what NJS has said about the EU.

 

 

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

[Renton 17876]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

[Park Life 70]

To be honest im not euro sceptic and like you have really not given it much thought.

 

However having given it some thought today, i seem to be struggling to find a list of benefits for staying v going, particularly given the Norway and Sweden stances.

 

I guess im coming at it from why do we need ANOTHER parliament to make up police and pass laws. As it stands we have less than 10% representation within that parliament anyway.

 

Why do we / you feel a bunch of germans / italians / french etc can make better laws for us than our own politicians.

 

If you do then doesnt that point to a problem with our system.

 

I've always been for the concepts of the EU because I feel in the next few years we need to be in an entity that big to compete with China and India as well as the "old" powers. I think an individual country would be too overshadowed.

 

I've also always thought the idea of a larger community with similar people (fuck off Parky) to be beneficial from a social point of view and I'f like to see the ties and exchanges between countries expanded.

 

This is the kind of wooly-deluded quasi utopian nonsense that has got us into it in the first place. I suppose trade with others was crap before we got into the EU?

 

If you want competition than the place to start would be to ditch the 12.780 new EU regulations that strangle business and ditch the thousands of hidden beuracrats earning god knows how much for sitting on comittess and filing their nails all afternoon.

 

....and if you had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty it wouldn't have gone through THAT'S WHY WE WEREN'T ALLOWED ONE IN OUR LOVELY DEMOCRACY.

[Renton 17876]

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

 

Why aren't they swamped with immigrants then? Is it because it is too cold or the beer is too expensive?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

 

 

Just a tad

[Park Life 70]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

 

Just wait till Turkey gain admission.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

 

Why aren't they swamped with immigrants then? Is it because it is too cold or the beer is too expensive?

 

 

http://www.mynorway.co.uk/

[Park Life 70]

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

 

Why aren't they swamped with immigrants then? Is it because it is too cold or the beer is too expensive?

 

Immigrants are too thick to go there.

[Guest alex]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

I think the biggest problem with immigration policy though is the difficulty / practicalities of enforcing it. I actually think the Lib Dems have the right idea in some ways. I've always thought as well that asylum seekers, people from outside the EU in general etc. should be allowed to work while they're awaiting a decision on whether they can stay. That way, it gets some of them off benefits and gets them into the system so they're much easier to keep track of. You have to pragmatic about it really.

[Guest alex]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

 

Just wait till Turkey gain admission.

That's what the guy from UKIP said. And I happen to agree with him.

[Park Life 70]

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

 

Why aren't they swamped with immigrants then? Is it because it is too cold or the beer is too expensive?

 

 

http://www.mynorway.co.uk/

 

That looks fantastic!

[Guest alex]

Must get myself over to Norway. I went once as a bairn and it was beautiful. Ridiculous when you consider how close it is.

[Renton 17876]

Yes you can sir, yes you can!

 

Why aren't they swamped with immigrants then? Is it because it is too cold or the beer is too expensive?

 

 

http://www.mynorway.co.uk/

 

That link wasn't useful. Doing a quick search it appears you need to have worked continuously in Norway for 5 years before you can apply for residency. Not exactly the same free movement as for the EU then.

[Renton 17876]

Don't think free movement would be an issue at all.

 

The only issue I can see would be whether we negotiate with countries on an individual basis or with the EU as a whole. If it was the EU as a whole then we'd still have the same situation with EU immigration as we currently do.

 

 

The problem we have is that Labour got its figures wrong.

 

Virtually every other country saw the risk and limited numbers.....Not Us tho

I think the limits were only for a limited time (which may have now expired anyway) though.

 

What limits were these then? Never heard of them before, I was under the impression intra-euro immigration was higher in many countires than it was here, happy to find out more about it if someone has a link (not to UKIP or similar though).

Iirc, for a period (4 or 5 years?) existing EU could limit the number of people they'd admit from the new members (Poland, Romania, etc.)

 

Right, sounds like we fucked up a bit then.

 

Just wait till Turkey gain admission.

That's what the guy from UKIP said. And I happen to agree with him.

 

So do I but it might never happen. Especially after Greece.

[Park Life 70]

Must get myself over to Norway. I went once as a bairn and it was beautiful. Ridiculous when you consider how close it is.

 

Finland is really nice as well, been 3 times.

 

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/country...pe/fitravel.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2010 by Park Life