UK General Election 2015

[Axionknight]

Mojocvh said:

I think he was relating to, you know, the ones that don't play by the rules.

People do that?

Get away.

[Art0ir]

CapX explain why young people are so attracted to the Greens.

I think they may have a point.

http://www.capx.co/why-are-so-many-british-student...

[pingu393]

JagLover said:

Axionknight said:

Hundreds of thousands a year? Care to support that claim with informstion on these Tory laws that are stopping us from sinking under the weight of such vast numbers?

Labour opened the floodgates with stealth changes that wouldn't draw notice.

Student Visas became a popular way to bypass immigration controls with the "student" often staying on to work and then achieve residency. These were often not university students, but those entering colleges or foreign language colleges that were often bogus. Tightening up the criteria led to a 46% reduction in the numbers from overseas entering those institutions.

Almost as soon as Labour came to power it abolished the "primary purpose" rule which tried to prevent those who sought to use family reunification VISAs to bypass immigration controls. It terms of long term migration family reunification VISAs are very important as by default those using them are here to stay. The Tories brought in a minimum income requirement of £18,600 in order to sponsor such an application that has had a significant impact on numbers.

Labours "highly skilled" immigration VISAs had tens of thousands a year who wouldn't have met any such description under an Australian style points system. It included numerous people who ended up working in kebab shops, Taxi firms, petrol stations, newsagents etc. Changes made by the Tories increased the number refused VISAs under this regime from 2 per cent to 37 per cent.

Labour's approach was basically to facilitate mass migration while having the pretence of controls being in place. There are genuine controls now but a drastic shift would be required to fully curtail mass migration.

Good stuff if true, and I don't doubt it. But why are you telling us and not them telling us.

It annoys the hell out of me that there are plenty of examples of where the coalition made a difference, but they are not shouting it from the rooftops. It's almost as if they don't want to win.

[pingu393]

Things must be looking up, the personalised targeted advertising on this site has just popped up Rolls Royce Financial Services . Only 3.9%APR if I want a Wraith. Much better than the usual Wonga stuff .

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Oh please, let this election be over quickly. It should fall under the definition of unusual torture to be subjected to Natalie Bennett's nasal whinny grating voice for more than a second.

I would actually enjoy the comedy that is the green's "fully costed" policies, but it is spoiled by her remarkably irritating voice. The mute button is a wonderful option.

[Axionknight]

JagLover said:

Labour opened the floodgates with stealth changes that wouldn't draw notice.

Student Visas became a popular way to bypass immigration controls with the "student" often staying on to work and then achieve residency. These were often not university students, but those entering colleges or foreign language colleges that were often bogus. Tightening up the criteria led to a 46% reduction in the numbers from overseas entering those institutions.

Almost as soon as Labour came to power it abolished the "primary purpose" rule which tried to prevent those who sought to use family reunification VISAs to bypass immigration controls. It terms of long term migration family reunification VISAs are very important as by default those using them are here to stay. The Tories brought in a minimum income requirement of £18,600 in order to sponsor such an application that has had a significant impact on numbers.

Labours "highly skilled" immigration VISAs had tens of thousands a year who wouldn't have met any such description under an Australian style points system. It included numerous people who ended up working in kebab shops, Taxi firms, petrol stations, newsagents etc. Changes made by the Tories increased the number refused VISAs under this regime from 2 per cent to 37 per cent.

Labour's approach was basically to facilitate mass migration while having the pretence of controls being in place. There are genuine controls now but a drastic shift would be required to fully curtail mass migration.

So net migration has been stymied by "hundreds of thousands" (your words) a year compared to what it was under the Labour government? Any real proof of this since we are still at an all time high?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/latest-immigration...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/net-m...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174

Edited by Axionknight on Friday 24th April 15:45

[chris watton]

Axionknight said:

So net migration has been stymied by "hundreds of thousands" (your words) a year compared to what it was under the Labour government?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/latest-immigration...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/net-m...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174

No offence, but I would hold the Guardian and BBC, even perhaps migration watch in the same regard as the Daily Mail - perhaps even the Sunday Sport - not the best if you want unbiased honesty..

[Axionknight]

chris watton said:

No offence, but I would hold the Guardian and BBC, even perhaps migration watch in the same regard as the Daily Mail - perhaps even the Sunday Sport - not the best if you want unbiased honesty..

Care to provide me with some figures you believe then?

[chris watton]

Axionknight said:

chris watton said:

No offence, but I would hold the Guardian and BBC, even perhaps migration watch in the same regard as the Daily Mail - perhaps even the Sunday Sport - not the best if you want unbiased honesty..

Care to provide me with some figures you believe then?

To be absolutely honest, I don't care that much - I was just pointing out that the links you gave aren't really the last word in impartiality and fact finding, are they?

[Axionknight]

chris watton said:

To be absolutely honest, I don't care that much - I was just pointing out that the links you gave aren't really the last word in impartiality and fact finding, are they?

So no, then.

[l354uge]

Art0ir said:

CapX explain why young people are so attracted to the Greens.

I think they may have a point.

http://www.capx.co/why-are-so-many-british-student...

Being a student myself I've been told by most green supporters the main reason they will vote green is to scrap tuition fees and legalise drugs. (even though they're in 2nd or 3rd year and wont benefit from £0 tuitions fees)
Most either don't know or don't care about their other more ridiculous policies.

Most of my close friends will be voting tory (half of them went into private school and most of them are from the south east, look into that how you will)

There's too much pandering to the elderly and use of political buzzwords for people my age to really engage, some from home just announce they think all politicians are W*nkers so they're going to vote UKIP...

[Bluebarge]

l354uge said:

Being a student myself I've been told by most green supporters the main reason they will vote green is to scrap tuition fees and legalise drugs. (even though they're in 2nd or 3rd year and wont benefit from £0 tuitions fees)
Most either don't know or don't care about their other more ridiculous policies.

Most of my close friends will be voting tory (half of them went into private school and most of them are from the south east, look into that how you will)

There's too much pandering to the elderly and use of political buzzwords for people my age to really engage, some from home just announce they think all politicians are W*nkers so they're going to vote UKIP...

Blimey, maybe we should restrict the franchise to the over-30's

[l354uge]

Bluebarge said:

Blimey, maybe we should restrict the franchise to the over-30's

Wouldn't go that far! I know some 40+ year olds who have a similar opinion and will also be voting UKIP as a "protest vote"

Reducing the voting to 16 as Labour are suggesting, however, is a stupid idea.

[ralphrj]

l354uge said:

Reducing the voting to 16 as Labour are suggesting, however, is a stupid idea.

Almost certainly going to happen though as the SNP are keen on lowering the voting age too.

The current imbalance of constituencies + lowering of voting age + Labour cap on donations (which cunningly won't impact their Union donations) should see Labour in power for some time (if not forever).

[JagLover]

Axionknight said:

So net migration has been stymied by "hundreds of thousands" (your words) a year compared to what it was under the Labour government? Any real proof of this since we are still at an all time high?

I am not disputing that immigration is at a very high level.

What I am saying is that it would have been even higher, by a number in the hundreds of thousands, if the changes seen since 2010 had not been made.

As you can see from my post the changes are significant and are documented if you want to look into it further.

[ralphrj]

^^^^There is also the fact that some decisions that impact immigration figures today were actually taken a long time ago by people who have since retired from politics.

For example, the immigration figures for 2014 were impacted by the removal of restrictions for migrants from Romania and Bulgaria. The Government imposed restrictions for the maximum permissible amount of time (7 years from joining the EU). The decision to approve the expansion of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria was made before Cameron was PM and even before Gordon Brown was PM. In fact Cameron wasn't even Leader of the Opposition when that decision was taken.

[johnxjsc1985]

ralphrj said:

^^^^There is also the fact that some decisions that impact immigration figures today were actually taken a long time ago by people who have since retired from politics.

For example, the immigration figures for 2014 were impacted by the removal of restrictions for migrants from Romania and Bulgaria. The Government imposed restrictions for the maximum permissible amount of time (7 years from joining the EU). The decision to approve the expansion of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria was made before Cameron was PM and even before Gordon Brown was PM. In fact Cameron wasn't even Leader of the Opposition when that decision was taken.

how difficult would it be to establish an optimum national population figure.
The NHS, the Education system and our Social housing all have limits so when as they seem to be are FULL why can we not say sorry closed for further immigration until further notice.
Would that be so wrong.

[Welshbeef]

edh said:

Welshbeef said:

Well just in the news HSBC is seriously looking to move its HQ out of London and out of the UK party due to the bank levy which last year cost them £750m which is increasing from 0.156% to 0.21% already announced in the budget. This change on like for like would mean this year it would be £1.01billion for 2015/16.

So if it leaves the Labour Party are aiming to increase the bank levy even further.... Possibly enough to push them over the edge and go (also said they are concerned about possible EU exit).


So labours fully costed plans will have to be revised and assume no HSBC and a hole of £1billon plus whatever extra they intend to add to that.....
Guess labour supporters will think they are bluffing or not understand what it means.

But the Tory plans won't need to be revised to account for this prospect?

It's all a game of bluff anyway - where would they go?

Is it? Share price has increased 5% on the news so the owners of HSBC like the idea. Also for the top men if it's Hong Kong then income tax starts at 2% raising to 13% and as it turns out they are non doms too...


Oddly - you seem to be utterly blind to the impact on labour due to this and instead of addressing the issue you go off asking another question. How about MTFU and answer what's put to you

But the fully costed labour plan has increased bank levy in it so suddenly it's not fully costed after all.

[johnxjsc1985]

If Labours only policy is to take from the rich and give to the poor then dont expect the rich to hang around just to be buttfked by miliband.
The "Rich" now live in many different locations and will do what they always and have done for hundreds of years and make themselves richer.
I know who the Conservatives are but Labour are not Labour they are a bunch of rich young men and women who like to play at socialism as long as they dont have to live with the people they are so quick to represent.
How could a docker from Liverpool or a plumber from Portsmouth vote for Miliband they mean nothing to him.

[edh]

Welshbeef said:

edh said:

Welshbeef said:

Well just in the news HSBC is seriously looking to move its HQ out of London and out of the UK party due to the bank levy which last year cost them £750m which is increasing from 0.156% to 0.21% already announced in the budget. This change on like for like would mean this year it would be £1.01billion for 2015/16.

So if it leaves the Labour Party are aiming to increase the bank levy even further.... Possibly enough to push them over the edge and go (also said they are concerned about possible EU exit).


So labours fully costed plans will have to be revised and assume no HSBC and a hole of £1billon plus whatever extra they intend to add to that.....
Guess labour supporters will think they are bluffing or not understand what it means.

But the Tory plans won't need to be revised to account for this prospect?

It's all a game of bluff anyway - where would they go?

Is it? Share price has increased 5% on the news so the owners of HSBC like the idea. Also for the top men if it's Hong Kong then income tax starts at 2% raising to 13% and as it turns out they are non doms too...


Oddly - you seem to be utterly blind to the impact on labour due to this and instead of addressing the issue you go off asking another question. How about MTFU and answer what's put to you

But the fully costed labour plan has increased bank levy in it so suddenly it's not fully costed after all.

MTFU?

I answered by pointing out that this potentially affects any future government - bearing in mind that the issues of bank taxation and EU membership that they cite, are not uniquely Labour ones. It may come as a surprise but I don't write the Labour budget plans. Anyway, why on earth would political parties publish budget plans for a million different future possibilities?. When do you think the Treasury and OBR will start doing this?

I guess that HSBC have noticed the Tories handing out billions in election bribes and are chancing their arm.