Be careful when holding books at press conferences
April 13th, 2005
This picture is going the rounds following this morning’s Labour manifesto launch. Thanks to Sophia for bringing it to our attention.
No doubt it will be in many of the papers
MessageSpace Advertising
I hope you don’t mind me posting this again, it seems even more relevent here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4433189.stm
“Britain” may be “For War”. But Scotland certainly was and is not.
2. Actually, Stuart, when the SNP forced a vote on the war, the Scottish Parliament supported the war by a narrow majority. Labour and Tories for the war; SNP, Lib Dems and the rest against.
- “… the Scottish Parliament supported the war by a narrow majority.
Against the regularly, and very clearly, expressed wishes of the people of Scotland.
Scottish Labour will come to rue the day.
… It says it all, doesn’t it.
Sorry Tone, but Scotland is not “For War”. You can keep your grubby merchandise…
I remember a craftily cropped photo where Thatcher’s head was superimposed against the ‘war’ in ‘Forward’.
I think the Conservatives are just about to get a possible news story which can add to the campaign, a little like the Rover saga.
Linda ?? - the teacher locked up for shooting an air pistol towards some kids and got locked up has gone on hunger strike after her bail application was rejected.
MH is bound to show how justice is not working.
4: “Scottish Labour will come to rue the day.”
Not for many decades judging by the enormous Labour majority in Scotland. The spineless anti-war mob will continue to blindly vote for Labour regardless.
7 -It will be interesting to see ,if MH does follow-up on this story, how a QC criticises the judiciary.
For War, but not For Defending the Country. One of those accused and alleged terrorists, linked to the guy convicted today for conspiracy and murder (and having ricin and other poisons) was a FAILED ASYLUM SEEKER; obviously one of the 230,000 (or whatever it is) that the government has not kicked out of the country. What price Tory “immigration scares” now?
You can drop the accused and alleged Sean. The guy convicted today was a failed asylum seeker.
11. Crikey. Just glimpsed C4 news. Ta. Not a great advert for Nulabour’s ‘newly successful’ asylum policy… If I were the Tory campaign managers I’d put this man’s name and crimes on a poster in every city. Just that. The bald details. With FAILED ASYLUM SEEKER at the bottom.
What is this? ‘New’ Labour being honest for once? Are they finally acknowledging their ideological forebears with their own version of Chaiman Mao’s Little Red Book?
And you don’t think Sean that might just run the risk of whipping up hysteria against asylum seekers?
People on this board seem to assume that Michael Howard is the default position. Anything that goes wrong is another vote for Howard. But unless he has credible policies to deal with these things it just wont happen. And so far he hasn’t.
14. No, I don’t. I fail to see this ‘racist hysteria’ that the CRE (et al) claims is stalking the streets, following the Tory campaign. Its bollocks. The British people are a pragmatic and level headed bunch, and don’t reach for burning crosses after a few headlines. What should make us perhaps slightly hysterical is the fact HMG’s inept immigration and asylum policy is permitting failed asylum seekers to remain in this country, who then go and plot mass terrorism against us. I think it would be fair for the Tories to draw attention to this in a stark and powerful way.
Sean - following our recent discussion concerning the universality of anti-semitism, had the terrorist in question been Jewish would you have been saying the same thing?
Sean, I think you would learn a lot from a few days at the Refugee Council, where you would see the supposedly ‘level-headed’ response some asylum seekers get from the ‘pragmatic and level-headed British public’.
17. IF there was a sizeable group of extremist Jews bent on the destruction of the West, IF mass terrorism against British people was being prumulgated in British synagogues, IF a group of fundamentalist Jews has slaughtered thousands in New York, Madrid, etc, in the past few years, yes I would be saying the same thing. But none of these things have happened. So your hypothesis is a little confused, i think.
Does anyone want to place odds on how long it is before the “For War Manifesto” is called Blairs other “Dodgy Dossier” on a main stream news program? Seems to me it can’t be long!
Er.. so that’s all asylum seekers are Muslim terroroists then? And btw, I didn’t put forward a hypothesis, just asked a question. Sorry if it irritated…
To be fair to Sean, Charlie, I think he probably would!
18. Actually, I don’t have to go to the Refugee Council, there’s a bunch of asylum seekers living on my street. Iraqis, i think. They are a quiet and affable bunch. They mainly sit on chairs smoking and doing nothing, have done so for years. I haven’t seen a single incident that could be construed as nasty, they are either politely ignored, or treated with notable courtesy. And that’s good. But if their claims have failed - chuck ‘em out.
Another way of looking at it is of course that the Government was right to push with the detention laws but had to water them down to fit an opposition that abused its inbuilt position in the un-elected house of Lords. Not an argument I would agree with but one that could be made.
On the other hand, I don’t think that either argument will be a deciding factor for most floating voters on polling day. Sure some care very strongly about it and the Tories lead on the issue but…Not that many rate it that highly, especially when compared to some of the issues Labour do lead on.
My hunch is that a good deal of undecided voters will grudgingly support Labour. However that is only my hunch.
Sean would you like to tell me what Mr Howards track record was on immigration when he was home secretary?
With an e or without? Anyway, Tony Blair apparently unveiled his manifesto today. But was he trying to tell us something else? And in the interests of fairness (and I’ve been looking for an excuse to dump this link somewhere):…
OT, but how tall is Charles Clarke?
21. Oh golly, i don’t think I said that, did I? Perhaps we are both confused. The fact is the threat to the West DOES come from radical Islam, Islamofascism. By your logic, if we had, say, a TV play about mass, religiously-inspired terrorist threats to the UK, we should have the terrorists played by Mormons, just so we don’t offend Muslims. Shouln’t need to say this, but of course I don’t believe all asylum seekers are terrorists, nor that all terrorists are Muslims, nor that all Muslims are a threat. etc etc. Hope i am not being patronising. Apologies beforehand if so!
23. Firstly, if you haven’t talked to them, how do you know they are asylum seekers? Secondly, that doesn’t disprove anything I have said.
BES are showing their rolling poll (6-11 April) with, for likely voters.
Con - 36.2
Lab - 35.1
Lib Dem - 18.3
What’s their methodology and how does this fit in with their past poll?
Of course - you could say if we had ID cards the guy wouldn’t have been able to change identity so many times. You can play party politics with this either way - but its pretty sick to do so….
Here’s the link
http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/index.html
8,
- “… the enormous Labour majority in Scotland.
Au contraire.
Yes, Labour have won every single election in Scotland since 1960. Yes, they truly are the Scottish Establishment. Yes, Scotland has been dominated and supressed by Labourites for two generations now.
But, no. Labour do not have a majority in Scotland, and actually, they never, ever have breached the 50% barrier, ever, in Scotland, despite the urban myth of Labour “popularity” (sic).
Labour stand at about 40% in the Scottish Poll of Polls:
http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/04/snp-consolidate-at-23.html
40% is not an “enormous majority”. It is not a majority at all.
25. Hi Robert. i imagine, by the tone of your question, that MH’s record was dire. I’m not surprised if so - I’m not a huge fan of the man myself. But after eight freaking years Labour can’t get away with this ‘just look at the Tory record’ stuff any more. That was a different Millennium! Fact is these gross failures in asylum and immigration have happened on Labour’s watch. They are responsible. They should take the blame - from the electorate.
26 - either - Manifestos or Manifestoes….
No - not patronising, but you mistake me for a GMW, I think, and I took you for someone who would happily put ‘failed asylum-seeker’ on a picture of a known-terrorist without worrying that the obvious link would be made between terrorists and asylum-seekers. Silly me.
31. Oh please. Are you really suggesting that, if this asylum disaster had happened under a TORY government, Blair and Campbell and Blunkett etc wouldn’t be making political hay out of it? Cause of some ‘ethical’ consideration?
Unless you lock up every single asylum seeker on refusing the initial application which means through the appeal period, judicial review etc you end up releasing people until the process is complete which can take years. This individual was still entitled to his appeal under British law. Asylum seekers also often destroy their documents so they can’t be sent home. The Tories propose working with the UNHCR to deal with all applications overseas. The trouble is they can’t say where and the UNHCR want nothing to do with the idea. This is not an easy problem with which to deal.
36. Yes, silly me too. It would be a mistake to impute a link between terrorism and asylum seekers, when a failed asylum seeker has just been convicted of terrorism. No, there’s no link at all. Quite quite wrong. This failed asylum seeker who has been convicted of terrorism was, in actual fact, a sweet shop owner from Anglesey.
39 - no you fool, he was a terrorist. The problem is in generalising from the particular, as you are perfectly well aware.
38. A very fair point. I also think the Tory plans for asylum are badly-thought through: but my original post which kicked this off was just to suggest a vivid way the Tories could use it for campaign purposes.
That said, the Dutch seem to be getting a handle on their asylum problem - but I confess i don’t know the details.
So are there 230,000 terrorists on the loose then Sean?, no doubt MH answer is to round them all up and put them on ships back home, or maybe we could have concentration camps. If your going to start an arguement, please make sure you have an answer.
Immigration is not a big problem to me, in fact we need quite a lot just to do the jobs we won’t do anymore, if anything it goes to show what a good economy we have when there are more jobs than people to fill them.
39 - He was also a man. Would you claim that all men are terrorists?
30. I’m not sure I understand this poll if one moves to their second page it shows a graph with a similar title with the LDs and Labs on a higher figure. Is the headline figure those certain to vote? Am I missing something ? I can’t seem to find a methodology or sample size either.
40. Who you calling a fool? I thought, er, patronising statements were verboten? anyway, i don’t wish to pick a nasty fight. Too tired and emotional after a long lunch. However I do believe that asylum, imigration and terrorism probably ARE linked: the fact that the government doesn’t know who’s coming in, going out, shouldn’t be here, surely leads one to doubt their ability to get a grip on the identities of unwanted foreign radicals… no? I therefore think it is fair for the Tories to point out this link. No one’s demonising anyone. i hope.
Sean, you still haven’t answered my question @ 23. How do you know the people on your street are asylum seekers?
47. Coz i know the landlord.
46. Sean, I actually agree with most of what you wrote in this post. My point would be that if the Conservatives took your advice and put up posters with the guy convicted today’s picture and name on it with FAILED ASYLUM SEEKER on it, this would have the effect of demonising asylu, seekers.
46. I feel I must remind everyone that Sean is prize winning writer of FICTION.
There is a strong danger of the Tories demonizing people and to be honest they do have some form on this, it was single mothers before, gypsies not so long ago, it makes me wonder if they are just bullies, the disabled better watch out they will get it next.
The only reason he is using immigration is because Crosby has told him it will be a vote winner, he did not do much about it when he was in government and it was shambolic then.
49 - the only point I’ve been trying to make too, and so obvious. BTW Sean it’s the intelligence services that are supposed to keep track of known terrorists, who when they move from country to country tend to use false identities and are thus not particularly visible to the immigration authorities.
It would seem most terrorists are not asylum seekers, but I doubt the facts will stop MH from infering they are. Anything to grub up a few more votes.
49. Fair enuff. We just disagree - I think the British people are much harder to whip up into hysteria than many assert - but anyway I’m not a Tory campaign manager! (for which most people here will give thanks)(or, er, maybe not…) so it ain’t gonna happen. But this begs a question - it is surely permissible, for even the most leftwing/liberal here, for the Tories to question the Labour government’s record on immigration and asylum. In that case, how would people suggest the Tories do this, in a vivid and powerful way, without (in youe eyes) their being racist/demonising people?
52. To be fair though, the government doesn’t do well on keeping track of who enters the country. People entering the U.K. do not even have to put their passport number on their landing card and don’t access the European database of stolen passports. I saw an interview with the head of Intepol a while back and he was, quite rightly, amazed at this. I can’t see for a moment why the U.K. doesn’t give people departure cards, like the USA, so they can keep track of when people come in and out.
I started this campaign with a low opinion of Howard, now it is falling off the scale of contempt. Does MH going around screaming “Blairs lost the plot” because if he thinks he says it enough times the voters will beleive it. TB may be many things, but anyone sane person can see he has not lost the plot!
I refer everyone to my question 54. The electorate is obviously worried about immigration/asylum… or ’security’ as the French euphemise it. This may have been compounded by tabloid headlines, but i think it is hard to deny it is there anyway. This concern should, democracy demands, be addressed by parties in a GE. So how should the Opposition do this in a potent and powerful way, without being ‘racist’ or ‘demonising’ people?
Try being honest with the facts might be a help, instead of whipping up hysteria. Then we can judge the facts, find the real problems, and propose sensible solutions.
The reason why leftwing/liberal people here, IMHO, react with disgust at the Conservatives’ approach to asylum, is because their ‘plans’ to deal with the problem are incoherent and chaotic. They are exploiting a vulnerable minority for electoral advantage, without having a policy to ameliorate the situation. Having done that, and tapped into people’s natural and dangerous (yet unfounded fears) about ‘bogus asylum seekers’ they have moved on from that to immigration, connected the two issues and built on it. That is why people find it objectionable.
It would appear that MH has lost the plot, he only seems to be talking to his core blue rinse brigade, he has said nothing that appeals to me, the Lib Dems have and I am prepared to give Labour another chance as I think public services have improved quite a bit there is a long way to go, but by the nature of things it does take time, I do not think the Tories understand it’s easier to demolish than build.
I do not trust the Tories on spending, there have been enough leaks apart from Flight to know that there is a very nasty party even nastier than the one showing it’s self now, and don’t take my word, my partner who is pretty neutral says that her and some friends were talking the other day and they all said that MH sent shivers down their spines there was something about him that was not quite right,
58. Sigh. Fair enough (though tendentious). So anyway, a poster just saying ‘Labour has tripled immigration since it came to power’ - would that be OK?
Blair was rightly condemned for publishing his iraqi dossier with the whole truth filleted out, he did not tell lies, but did not tell the whole truth. The tories make much play of this, but they are doing exactly the same over asylum and other issues to scare the public into voting for them.
59. Sorry, but how can people’s fears about ‘bogus asylum seekers’ be ‘unfounded’ when a ‘failed asylum seeker’ has just been convicted of murder and terrorist conspiracy? Am I being a bit dim, or something?
You are banging your head against a brick wall I fear.
Though even diehard Tories will surely agree that “fantasy island” was very funny indeed.
63 - Because there was no causal link between the two.
58 What Sean means by “potent” is “something that only the tories can sort out”. Anybody can solve it your way, so there’s nothing in it for MH. Sean is right, only the frightners will do.
From what I understand (don’t quote me), immigration did rise sharply in the first part of this parliment (perhaps people are coming here because they know there are plenty of jobs and life is good under New Labour), but I also understand that immigration numbers coming in have fallen sharply recently and refusals have jumped also. So know your poster would only be partly correct.
Burbachris, would my suggested campaign poster in post 61 be OK by you? Not being provocative - genuinely curious. Might make a piece!
63. I’m sorry, i just think that’s sophistry. ‘no causa link’. Really. The fact he the man was living in the UK as an untraced and un-ejected failed asylum seeker, and he was plotting to poison us all with ricin. I reckon the electorate will see something disturbing in that situation, and they will be right. I’d like to see Charles Clarke stand up and say ‘there was no causal link’ between the man’s status and his terrorism. It may be semantically true, but it would look a very silly and irresponsible statement.
More irresponsible than suggesting that asylum seeker = terrorist?
70. as I said, I don’t think the sensible British electorate would draw that inference from my suggested poster. Perhaps i am over-estimating the British people, perhaps you are under-estimating them. We disagree. Burbachris, any thoughts on my suggested campaign poster?
63. Because antipathy was whipped up towards ‘bogus asylum seekers’ not on the basis that that they were terrorists, but rather that they were all spongers coming here to take our homes and dole money.
The tory habit of blaming one segment of society who can often not have their side of the story told, or are often underprivelged, or the results of society mis-understandings appalls me. There is a whiff of something nasty about it. As someone else said, before it was single mothers, who next?
71. See 67
If I follow the logic of your argument Sean, you then must support the idea of locking up all asylum seekers until their applications and appeals have been processed?
67. Well, i fear you are wrong. I believe immigration has plateau’d of late - at about 120,000 -150,000 net, roughly three times what it was in the last years of the Tories. It certainly hasn’t ‘fallen sharply’. Perhaps you should get your figures right before you start pontificating. But you still haven’t really answered my question - would a poster saying’ Labour has tripled immigration’ - and just that, be OK by you? Given that is it true?
He was not unchecked they knew where he was, sometimes it is better to let a suspect run and get close to committing a crime before moving in, Ricin whilst deadly is a very hard poison to deliver it has to injected to work, I suppose if all the immigrants of late would have been equipped with syringe
Why would anyone want to come here when the Tories were in power, no jobs etc, most immigrants do the jobs we do not want to do!
As I said ‘don’t quote me’. Also I was hardly pontificating as you describe it, you are obviously rattled at all the flak you are taking over your obscene comments that immigrants = terrorist.
What baffles me about the Tory stance on immigration is that they first tell us that immigration is too high but when asked what the “correct” level of immigration should be, they say “no idea, it’s up to Parliament to set a limit in light of the economic conditions at the time.”
Hang on, if you truly have no idea what the “right” level of immigration should be in any given year, how can you then say that the present figure is “too high”?
I’m also amused by the story in today’s “Guardian” that Mr Howard’s promised “24-hour security at ports and airports” will actually only apply to 35 ports and airports in the UK (out of 650) - and 11 of the 35 ports already have 24-hour surveillance!
So, Sean, do we lock them up or not?
79. Yeah, right. And you are obviously rattled because YET AGAIN someone on this forum who disagrees with me is reduced to calling my arguments ‘obscene’ (ad hominem), and putting words in my mouth, i.e. that i said ‘immigrants = terrorists’. Please. i think we are having a relatively courteous if robust debate on a dificult topic. I just DISAGREE WITH YOU, it doesn’t make me OBSCENE, nor a RACIST.
77. I readily confess i do not have all the answers to asylum. Who does? But you are factually wrong in yr account of the ricin conspiracy. He had absconded. check this link
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17903066
I defy anyone not to be a little concerned by the ineptitude on display in this case.
Re 76
Sean, ahem, from C4’s fact check site-
“Britain is no longer the most popular destination for asylum seekers among industrialised countries and was replaced at the top of the table by France in 2004. France had 61,600; the US was second last year with 41,667 and Britain third with 40,202, according to figures from UNHCR and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Germany - the top asylum country in 13 of the past 20 years - was fourth with 35,600 and Canada was fifth with 25,500.
The latest published asylum statistics show applications have fallen by 68 per cent in the UK since the peak month of October 2002 and provisional figures for 2004 show applications fell by 33 per cent last year, including dependents - twice the rate of the rest of Europe.
Asylum applications are now almost back to the level of 1997. Then, there were 32,500 applications. Last year, there were 33,930.”
83. Burbachris, you are confusing asylum with immigration - something you lot regularly accuse Labour of! My suggested poster said ‘immigration has tripled under Labour’, which it has. Didn’t mention asylum in this context.
84. erratum! meant the tories, of course..
The shrillness of parts of the thread seems to be getting a little too much?
For the record:
The Evening Standard report of the ricin terrorism case follows Sky in featuring the asylum angle. But the judge also focussed on the laxity in systems for passports too. And the real importance seem to me to be the border and pasport security. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA13407671113151400A00004?source=&ct=5
The report says: “ A suspected al Qaida terrorist who was plotting to use the deadly poison ricin has been jailed for life for the murder of a Special Branch detective.
The ricin case revealed how Kamel Bourgass and others made a mockery of Britain’s asylum system.
At the end of the trial the judge Mr Justice Penry-Davey said: “This case has shown very clearly the scale on which false passports are available and being used.”
Bourgass, who had at least four false identities, was first recorded as being in the UK when he applied for asylum three years before he killed Detective Constable Stephen Oake”.
Later the report says, “Bourgass was a failed asylum seeker. He was in breach of the conditions imposed as part of his temporary release. ”
Copyright The Evening Standard from its This is London website.
84, Immigration is not a problem for me, there are jobs to do, it will be a problem under the Tories as they ramp up unemployment
I never called you a racist!. You may not have said directly that immigrants = terrorist but that is your inference and people on this site have picked up on it. MH is very good at this inference too. Also I never called you obscene, only the comment that immigrants = terrorist. So calm down.
Surely Sean’s poster epitomises the problem. Labour haven’t ‘tripled immigration’ as an act of policy, merely applied the rules of the market the Tories claim so to admire. We need people to do jobs, people want to come here to work. Seems to make sense to let them in. The Tory ploy is to pretend that it’s a deliberate policy by self-hating Brits to dilute the Britishness of Britain, which is one reason why people get angsty about it.
88. I’m calm, I’m calm!! Hah!!!! I reject the inference you mention, of course. Er, do you accept that you have confused asylum and immigration?
Sean, I agree you didn’t say asylum seeker = terrorist. However, some of the things you propound would establish that link in people’s minds. This is in the same manner that in many people’s minds asylum has become conflated with immigration. A typical example was a woman on a vox pop in the news yesterday, who lived somewhere up north where there didn’t appear to be many immigrants, but who was complaining about ‘them coming over here and us feeding them and clothing them and giving them houses’. The vast majority of immigrants who come to this country work hard, pay their taxes and do jobs that people in the U.K. won’t do; this is why we have to be careful about the manner in which we frame the terms of the debate Sean, which I fear you are a little lax about doing.
When is an asylum seeker not an immigrant? Asylum seekers maybe different technically from economic migrants, but they are all immigrants. I doubt these statistics notify any difference, perhaps there is an expert out there.
Its the whole ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking’ thing - the nudge nudge wink wink - to be honest, when it comes to immigration and asylum it would be a lot easier if the Tories *told* us what they’re thinking and allow us to make up our minds on whether we agree….
89. Think my original poster suggestion was ‘immigration has tripled under Labour’. a statement of fact. But ‘Labour has tripled immigration’ would also be a statment of fact. Either Labour deliberately tripled immigration, as a matter of policy, or it happened without their realising, which would be negligent, no?
93 - excellent.
And you STILL haven’t said whether you agree asylum seekers should be locked up until their claims and appeals are processed.
Where are most ayslum seekers coming from as opposed to economic migrants, I expect many are from Iraq and Kurdistan.
Sean – I’ve followed some of your posts with interest as what you forget is by attacking terrorists and by inference Muslims you are attacking the targeted allies of the Lib Dems and hence they will defend them.
The Lib Dems naturally forget, or turn a blind eye to the Muslim attitude in regard to gays, women or democratic rights as all is fair in the electoral battle.
There are many examples of failed asylum seekers who have caused death by driving uninsured dangerous cars on the roads but naturally I wouldn’t argue that all road deaths are caused by failed asylum seekers but what can be said is that certain deaths would not have happened if those asylum seekers had been removed.
The mix up of asylum seeker with economic migrant and health tourists just muddies the water but it is of the governments making .
92. No, asylum and immigration statistics have to be looked at seperately.
91. Well, believe it or not this debate - and previous ones - has made me focus on my own beliefs about immgration/asylum. And I confess i have realised that I do not have a wholly coherent plan as to how we should deal with it. So I’m gonna have a think! See, this forum works! Changes people’s minds! However i also believe that the liberal/left has a massive blind spot about race/immigration, and would rather shout down anyone who addresses it with accusations of racism, than actually deal with the problem. And this forum has,I fear, confirmed that belief. But, hey, you can’t win ‘em all1
98. Vino, what you have just said about LibDems and Muslims is, quite frankly, proposterous. I am a Lib Dem supporter, but I said what I have said because it is the LIBERAL position to take.
92. Sorry mate, no. Wrong. The stats differentiate. So should you.
94 - no Sean, of course not. They’ve neither had a policy of tripling immigration nor failed to notice immigration has tripled, they’ve simply let people come here to do the jobs there’s noone else to do. That approach is being used against them by a party which itself would of necessity allow the same immigration in the same circumstances since otherwise they would be presiding over an unnecessary labour shortage. Of course if you don’t want nurses in your hospitals… (etc etc you know how it goes).
100, You do make some good points Sean, it is not a problem now but willbe if we have a major economic slump, there is only one way to stop that Vote Labour
97. The nationalities accounting for the most applicants in 2003 were Somali, Iraqi, Chinese, Zimbabwean and Iranian. Compared with 2002, large falls occurred in the number of applications from nationals of Iraq (falling from 14,570 to 4,015), Afghanistan (from 7,205
to 2,280), and Zimbabwe (from 7,655 to 3,295). On the other hand, increases occurred in the number of applications received from nationals of India (rising from 1,865 to 2,290),
and Liberia (from 450 to 740).
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1104.pdf
The Tories used to complain about the burden of “red tape” on business. Their policies of political interference in the international labour market seems to go completely against that. Business will have to jump through hoops of quotas and point systems to try and get the staff they need. It would lead to uncompetitiveness, staff shortages and wage inflation.
103. Fair points, of course. But my personal objection to Labour on immigration is not the actual ‘tripling’ - there are sound economic reasons for this as you say. It’s that Labour did it - or let it happen -without warning, without a manifesto commitment, indeed they were loathe to discuss it at all (and perhaps still are). I don’t want to go back on old threads (honestly!) but 140,000 people a year is an unprecedented influx for postwar Britain, and i think an honest and trustworthy party should have somehow announced this, or warned us, or even mentioned it. But they didn’t. Probably because they suspect the UK people would have objected. So that seems duplicitious, or negligent at best, to me.
As I have said before i am personally pro-immigration. But anti- lying governments.
Re:80 . The Conservative Party’s stance on asylum/immigration shouldn’t baffle anyone. It is purely opportunistic (note that this issue is the only one where the party has a substantial lead) and has no real conviction of fundamental belief behind it. Simply put, it is to con the most ‘Right-wing’ elements of the population into voting for the Conservatives instead of UKIP/Veritas or the BNP just as it was in 1979 with Mrs Thatcher’s ‘we are being swamped’ trick which did so much damage to the NF’s chances. The Conservatives WILL control immigration/asylum better than Labour will (could anyone be worse?) but it will still leave a very large room for improvement, not least because the Tory plans have been ruled ILLEGAL by our masters in the EU! If the Tories were really tough, they wouldn’t have voted for the expansion of the EU to Eastern Europe or be in favour of Turkey joining.
102, Nobody has called you racist. I do differentiate between economic migrants and asylum seekers, I merely questioned whether the article I pasted did! Which is more likley to be a terrorist Sean?
Interestly MH always states that immigrants will lead to a population rise of 5 million over the next few years, which one would infer that 5 million people are about to arrive at Dover, however he forgets to add that much of these 5 million will be children born to immigrants in the UK, much like MH himself. Again this is using only partly true information to make a dramtic inference about immigration numbers. MH cries foul over Blairs dodgy dossier, but he is using the same tactic over and over agian in this campaign.
107 - So you’d have referendums on how much immigration we should allow year by year, as if it were a constantly recurring constitutional issue? Or what? And what other areas of policy would you feel the government ought to ‘ask the people’ about on a regular basis? Take your point that you’re not anti-immigration, btw. It just seems that in that case you’re making quite a fuss about it.
ICM for the Guardian Lab 39( up 2) Con 33( down1) LD 21
Hey guys. This has been an entertaining, vigorous and relatively high-minded debate, which has also served the useful purpose of preventing me going down the pub (again). I hope that, just as I have had been obliged to look again at my own slightly incoherent thoughts on asylum policy, i may have opened a few blinkered liberal eyes to the possibility of left-wing closed-mindedness on race. Well, you live in hope! Now i wonder how Liverpool are doing…
Is there not another Mori poll out?
107. The problem is though that it would be difficult to convince people that we need net immigration of 50,000/100,000 or whatever it might be, even though we do. That is why MH refuses to say what level he thinks it should be set at - ‘leaving it to parliament’. This is what I was saying earlier - he taps into fears. Let the Tories put in their manifesto what level they think immigration should be set at, and then I will accept you taking Labour to task for not having it in theirs.
122. I am not left wing, nor liberal, I am pretty centrist, please do not accuse people who disagree with you of being something they are not.
112, Yes it has, I respect you Sean, I would have given up by now well done, I am not blind to the problems I know them I just don’t think it should be used as a polictical football, it should be debated away from election times,
0-0
I have watched these exchanges with fascination and I now wonder if I could intervene to ask for some help?? I am currently working on an academic paper on the role of local party activism - is it fundraising, policy-making, GOTV, voter ID, comms etc?? How could local parties retain their vibrancy when there are many competing claims on people’s time and the electoral battle is fundamentally an ‘air war’?? You get the drift…..
I’d really like to interview all of you busy canvassers to garner your views. We can do this after May 5th (and after a few days of hols!!). Could you please get in touch if interested??
Thanks
where is this poll information from? not on gaurdian or ICm site
119 - It was on Sky News at 9pm. There is at least one more poll in the papers tommorow as well.
The Guardian don’t update the website with the print version until about 1 normally, IIRC.
119. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4395065
115, thats me too, I like the Centre ground and to the main that’s where Labour seem to be, if the Tories were there they could have got my vote but I do not like extreems
These ‘good for Labour’ polls give me the creeps, speaking as another non-lefty centrist. Palmer’s paradox is only too convincing. Come on Tories - do better!
When the tories will move to the centre ground, the centre ground will be so crowded that they could all merge in one all big party.
where are all left winged Labour supporters? Too ashamed to admit it (maybe this year there’ll be a new “spiral of silence”: left winged voters)
Re : 45 Agreed it’s hard to fathom but,yes, the 2 sets of figures show the now usual pattern of Lab support higher among the whole sample than likely voters. And you can, just about, find your way to a presentation on the study which says this is an internet poll of 200 a day - so 1200 for 6-11 April. Key thing to watch for is whether or not it rolls towards Lab like everything else.
125 - gone to the LDs or the Ba’ath party, I suspect.
127. What is the Ba’ath party?
NEW ARTICLE on the ICM poll showing big boost for Labour.
Chrisco - 101 - What part of my post was proposterous?If the Lib Dems are not targetting the Muslim community for the anti-war vote despite the Muslim attitude to gays,women and indeed the democratic process then I was wrong.
There is no cause and effect Vino. Lib Dems are defending Muslims against illiberal attacks on them.
Here’s something to ponder…at this stage in 2001 the Tories share with ICM was 31/32. Now we have 2 ICM polls with Tories at 33%. Surprisingly there seems to be scant evidence - despite the undoubted change in mood - that the Tories will increase their vote much. Even the pro-Tory reports on this site seem to indicate Tories are backing their party and opposing Blair more strongly, not that there are many more of them.
burbachchris at 56 - I don’t think TB’s judgement is as good as it was.
But Martin 132 - all the pollsters are recidivist Labour over-staters. Whenever you see any poll from any pollster keep on repeating that to yourself. They’ve been like this with hardly any exceptions for half a century. What evidence is there that they are doing it right now?
It would be wonderful on May 6th for us to be talking about Tory over-statement in the polls but there are no signs that this is going to happen.
Its been a long time since Tory support can be called over-stated. I think one would have to go back to 1987.
83 burbachchris
The Channel 4 Fact Check site is more interesting than you give it credit for, as was its presentation of the immigration increases in its programme last week that showed the threefold increase exists and happened under this Labour government (which has some bearing on the question of what was Michael Howard’s record as he was the last Conservative Home Secretary before the Blair government took office).
The debate is often presented as about asylum seekers but that, I think, is a red herring distracting from the main issue that most people worry about. They worry about the level of immigration and within that the level of illegal immigration. All the immigration figures are a mixture of EU migrants, non-EU economic migrants (doctors and nurses and office cleaners etc) and asylum seekers that are allowed to remain after they arrive illegally ( they are illegal until judged to be an accepted asylum recipient) until their appeals have been judged and failed asylum seekers that are not removed from the country. There is no doubt that the government has been making some progress on the latter, but on the other hand the laxity in Bulgaria and the Immigration Service itself has left public confidence low. As has the rather provocative not to say illogical pronouncement by Davds Blunkett that there was no natural limit to immigration that he could foresee.
Channel 4 quotes the Office of National Statistics figures for 2003 that “showed a slight drop in the number of new immigrants over the year, and confirmed a much bigger fall since 2000. It stated: ‘In 2003, 151,000 more people migrated to the UK than migrated abroad. This was slightly lower than the estimate of 153,000 in 2002 and estimates of between 162,000 and 172,000 per year in the preceding three years’.”
However, over the same period, it reports, the number of UK residents who left to settle elsewhere increased from 359,000 in 2002 to a record 362,000 in 2003. The figures quoted are net figures. That is the number of immigrants less those leaving the country.
So the numbers of new immigrants to the UK in 2002 was 512,000 and in 2003 it was 513,000. And the Channel 4 site suggests that the numbers of net immigrants have been up to 10% higher higher for each of the previous three years ( or ONS thinks they have as no-one really knows.
That is an extraordinary number of people (one million in two years, 2 million in four years) and that is what the people on the ground, so to speak, have noticed and it worries them. I believe it is quite condescending of anyone ( and I do not accuse you of this) to dismiss this concern as racist or abhorrent. Those that do this are probably not facing the competition socially that results from such population pressure but are often benefiting directly or indirectly from the nanny, or plumber or cockler and see the result as a good thing. Part of this social pressure is the reduction in labour costs for low wage jobs. It seems possible that with lower immigration wages might improve to a level that really encourages part of the increasing numbers of unemployed and under employed back into full time work. I am constantly amazed that th Labour party should support an arrangement that has this effect.
Most worrying is that the ONS constantly refers to estimates of immigrants as well as estimates of emigrants. The latter I understand as there are no outward border controls worth the name. But the statistics, while showing the scale of the problem also demonstrate the lack of grip on the country’s borders.
This lack of public trust will not have been helped by the ‘Ricin’ case and the pronouncement by Charles Clarke at Labour’s Gateshead conference on Sunday 10th April 2005: “We want more migration, more people coming to study and work. We want more people coming to look for refuge.”
Chrisco – 131 – illiberal means opposed to liberal principles – are you saying that the Lib Dems are not targeting the Muslim vote because they (the muslims ) are illiberal in their attitude to gays, women and the democratic process?
My best guess is that Labour support is at 37% Tory support at 35% and LibDem support at 21%
Can anyone talk me out of sticking everything on a labour maj. of 65+ at 10/11 (paddy power)?
137. Maybe I am being stupid Vino, but I don’t follow what you are saying.
Just a point about asylum and immigration. The more we can spread democracy and knock out tyrants like Mugabe, the less problems we will have. The point is that a well planned interventionist FP can have the knock on effect of reducing the need for asylum. On another point it is interesting that in a lot of the terrorist cases we are seeing in Britain, the suspects are Algerian. Interesting in the sense that you would think Algerians would head to France (their former colony till the 1960s) rather than Britain. I wonder why this occurs?
John I think that would be a safe bet.
141. Because France launched a crackdown on them in the late 1990s and they fled elsewhere.
87 - Unemployment figures - much talk about unemployment earlier that this will increase with a Conservative Government.
Today it was announced that unemployment had increased by 27000. I do however, accept that the total in work had also increased.
Is this the first time it has increased since Labour came to power ?
Chrisco - 140 - “Lib Dems are defending Muslims against illiberal attacks on them.” What illiberal attacks?
RE 143: Why did France launch a crackdown on them? Should we not have followed on? The problem in a sense is that we have had to accept Algerians who are extremists (Islamic fundamentalists) but who would be persecuted at home. This gets back to my point about the importance of spreading democracy and also raises a dilemma about how you deal with people who are not desirable (due to their backgrounds) but who would be persecuted at home? Was this not the case for example with Abu Hamza.
Quoting your good self Vino, “Sean – I’ve followed some of your posts with interest as what you forget is by attacking terrorists and by inference Muslims you are attacking the targeted allies of the Lib Dems and hence they will defend them.”
146. Islamic, mainly Algerian, terrorists launched a bombing campaign in France, mainly in Paris I think, in the mid-1990s. That resulted in the crackdown.
Mike Don’t you think that restricting yourself to ‘absolutely certain to vote cuts down the overstatement quite a bit. Also it was the Lib dems not the Tories who were understated last time-big time as I recall. Are you arguing that there is a Lib Dem surge going on which is unrecorded. Of course that could help the Tories quite a bit in some seats and damage them in others.
Chrisco - 147 -”Most terrorists attacking Britain or the West are Muslim, most convicted terrorists or suspects are muslims.” Is the above statement an illiberal attack on the muslim community?
re 134 Mike…I was deliberately focusing on the Tory share…surely keen interest to you given number of Lib Dem/Tory marginals! And let’s not forget the final four polls last time over-stated Lab by ‘only’ 3 points, with the outlier - Gallup - no longer in play. I do expect similar again, despite the corrections, but I’m suggesting it’s less certain than previously.
150. No Vino, it isn’t.
Re:136 Some very good points there. But no-one should really be surprised that the Labour Party isn’t too worried about the effect mass immigration has upon the wage rates of the unskilled etc as the Labour Party has (since the 1960’s or so) always put internationalism and equality far ahead in its sense of priorities than the interests of the native ‘working-class’.
Re 141. You are not seriously suggesting that should be a Conservative foreign policy, are you? Whilst that policy may reduce the need for ‘asylum’ it won’t reduce all of it because many of the ‘asylum-seekers’ are, in fact, economic migrants. We would be at war most of the time! The Tory Party should have a REAL Tory foreign policy of non-interventionism.
And what figures do you have to support the thesis that many asylum seekers are economic migrants, Barry?
I don’t believe a single word of the Labour manifesto.
It is a huge fraud.
Re:155 The UN states that at any one time in the world there are about 22 million people claiming ‘asylum’ now many of them are probably being persecuted (and, of course, many people’s definitions of what constitutes ‘persecution’ will differ) but I think that many of these people are simply seeking a better life due to their own countries failing. Nobody can say that many of the countries in Africa in particular are very successful since we and the French left.
Can you guide me to the source for those figures Barry? And thankfully, persecution is not a subjective definition, but is defined by international law and treaty as “To be granted asylum under the 1951 UN Refugees Convention it is necessary to demonstrate a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” or people may be granted humanitarian leave to remain in the grounds that they “cannot be returned to their country of origin as they face a serious risk to life or person from one or more of the following reasons: death penalty, unlawful killing, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” And I think if you took a survey of the inhabitants of Africa they would tell you that they don’t think their countries were very successful (!) when the British and the French were there either.
Martin - your analysis of the 2001 polls only works if you include the excellent Rasmussen surveys for the Indy on Sunday and exclude the ICM Standard survey with its 17% Labour lead. This used automated telephone polling and was the ONLY poll to get the Tory share right.
The IoS in their great wisdom are using Communicate Research this time.
Am I alone in being disturbed by Nick Robinson’s coverage of the election for ITV news? Has anyone else noticed the antipathy he seems to feel towards Tony Blair, the way his voice is more emphatic, sneering even, when voicing “voters’” criticism of Blair, the way he constantly informs us ‘this election is largely about trust in Mr Blair’, the way his reports on Blair always end on a negative (as far as Blair is concerned) note? I don’t remember John Sargeant or Mike Brunson being so tendentious.
Fundamentals, I agree. I thought the contrast between BBC news and ITN was quite marked last night. However, it was interesting that even the people he found that agreed with him that they did not trust Blair, did not necessarily say that they would not be voting Labour.
George
Nick Robinson is an ex chairman of Conservative Future I believe. And though your editors can take the prejudice out of the text they can’t take it out of your voice! But yes. I think most people have noticed.
162. Come on guys, you’ve got the BBC TV news in your pocket, Radio 4 a self-proclaimed supporter, and Jon Snow on C4 couldn’t be a more obvious europhile, progressive, chattering class soft-leftie if he wore an I Heart Robin Cook tee-shirt. Allow us ITN, eh?
162/3 I compared the performance of the interviewers on C4 and Radio 4 talking to Con/Lab/Lib on their budget proposals. The interviews of the Con spokesman were very aggresive with the interviewer almost shouting at him (particularly Jon Snow). For Lab/Lib the tone of voice was much sofeter and the spokesmen were allowed to waffle on for as long as they wished and without being dragged back on to the issue.
The BBC may claim intellectualy they are even handed but in their heart they can’t manage it. C4 don’t even bother trying
164 - I agree about Jon Snow on Channel 4 News when he was interviewing George Osborne - it seemed to me to really back fire on Jon Snow.
114. Chrisco: That is why MH refuses to say what level he thinks it should be set at - ‘leaving it to parliament’.
I seem to remember the Tories saying it should be set to around mid-90’s levels, but I can’t rember what that was.
For the record I agree that C4 is massively biased, but I’m not sure whether the BBC is or not, sometimes it is hard on Lab and soft on Cons.
166. My point to Sean was that the level isn’t in the manifesto; he was castigating Labour for not putting increasing immigration into theirs. Can you direct me to where this ‘mid-90s’ figure is policy. It isn’t on the Tory website…
Re 159 Mike If we leave in both Rasmussen and Gallup - which produces the 3% Lab overstate - I think that’s fair. Very good point you make about the last but one ICM poll last time which I had overlooked…but are we sure method was same as for Guardian? Anyway, would you agree ICM have got a pretty good record and though perhaps more likely to overstate than understate Lab lead, it’s within the MoE to go either way (as in 1997 when their last 2 polls had the gap a little less than it proved to be).
166. Jon Snow admits in his autobiography that he is a ‘passionately committed Europhile’, so he’s hardly concealing his political inclinations (BTW I read that in a review of his memoirs, not the actual memoirs; I can’t imagine reading his actual memoirs. I mean. How boring must they be? Very boring or just very boring? In fact I’d rather read, I dunno, Midge Ure’s memoirs, and that’s not a phrase you often hear). Er, anyway, where was I - in my humble opinion, I reckon British TV news programmes should just come out and admit their bias, like some TV news in the the States, or Uk papers. Then we’d all know where we stand. Only the Beeb should be above the fray, I think - cause of the licence fee. But that would mean they’d have to really try and be unbiassed - tricky for them as they are so freaking institutionally left/liberal. And I know what i’m talking about - I have quite a few friends there. Not a single Tory.
167. Chrisco:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3990529.stm
“Under the plan, Parliament would set a quota - expected to be about 20,000 - for refugees every year.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3720836.stm
When pushed on the level of immigration quotas, he said: “On the asylum quota it’s probably in the order of about 20,000, we will not make that decision yet but that’s around where it is likely to be. The other ones are dictated by the facts of the day.”
Although I cant’t find a mention of mid 90’s levels…
That’s not immigration levels Jon, that’s the number of refugees Britain would accept under the Tories.
I wonder when we asked the Spanish if they wanted few hundred thousand Brits to move there?
Hmmm…you’re right. Oh well.
Re: 158 I can’t guide you to the actual source, but this figure is one I have heard bandied about by various experts on asylum when they have been on the radio or TV. I am sure that a large proportion of African ‘asylum-seekers’ are just trying to get away from their own countries (I’m not blaming them as it must be awful to live in one of these ‘failing states’). Nobody can surely deny that Zimbabwe is in a disastrous mess since Ian Smith’s government has fallen and we British left. It used to be called “The Breadbasket of Africa” and was progressing well;now they can’t feed themselves. Many of the blacks there say they wish Ian Smith was ruling them again. Yes, Zimbabwe is the most dramatic example of a ‘failing state’ but there are others on that continent and elsewhere in the world.
174. I have couple of Zimbabwean friends Barry, both very anti-Mugabe, but I have never heard them say anyone in the MDC camp would welcome the return of white domination. As has been witnessed around the world, the desire for self-determination makes people do seemingly irrational things such as suffer a drop in living standards. And as a point of fact Zimbabwe has not been in a terrible mess since the British left, it has been in a terrible mess since Mugabe started implementing disastrous policies in order to maintain his grip on power in the mid-1990s. They are two very different things.
174. And you surely can’t deny that Mugabe persecutes political opponents, which explains the large numbers of asylum seekers. It is true that some African states are a mess, but can’t you see the correlation between the African countries where most asylum seekers come from and those African states where you most stand risk of being persecuted or forced into a militia at gunpoint? And as for those who aren’t genuine? Remember that 2/3 applications is denied (Home Office figures 2003).
Re 176 I don’t deny that Mugabe is a vicious and evil man but that doesn’t mean that those asylum-seekers should come to Britain. They should go to the nearest safe country which isn’t us. It is because we get them from the furthest reaches of the globe that many British people think asylum-seeking is just another form of immigration.
Many asylum-seekers’ claims to asylum are turned-down here yet the British government makes little to no effort to return them hence the growing public concern over the isssue.
Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine says “there’s something very wrong with your life when you start looking on Saturday as blog catch-up day.” Sunday isn’t much better, I guess. But following a manic couple of days, here are some quick links…
nick robinson more sympathetic to blair? you’re joking! you do know his background don’t you? i think he wants to be the next alastair campbell….under Cameron or whoever.
This is a great site. The info on this page is awesome. You made my day.Fantastic job.