Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[RDM]

So Farage is now backing away from a migration cap...when oh, just such a short time ago they were touting a 50,000 limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31722779

Seems a doublespeak way of saying, we can't promise to limit immigration because either

a) We won't be able to control it like we said we could

or

b) We actually need the immigration

I listened to the interview this morning on the way in to work. Bearing in mind I cannot stand Farage and dislike what his party stands for immensely what he was saying was actually fairly sensible. Immigration based purely on need rather than just where you happened to be born isn't really that bad a policy. It is however completely unworkable whilst we are part of the EU.

But then even a broken clock is right twice a day...

 

[ubersonic]

I think its a step in the right direction for UKIP, setting hard numbers on immigration is pointless, more important is the quality of the people coming in.

The problem is, everything he says we need and he will give us, we already have today on non-EU immigration, and we can't implement it on EU immigration anyway.

Of course he is counting on his voter pool not knowing that

 

[robgmun]

The problem is, everything he says we need and he will give us, we already have today on non-EU immigration

Incorrect, non-EU immigration is running on 170,000 now, the tories utterly failed on immigration they could control!!

 

[ubersonic]

Incorrect, non-EU immigration is running on 170,000 now, the tories utterly failed on immigration they could control!!

Actually it is correct, the point is we already have very strict quality control on who comes in from outside the EU (excluding refugees, which Nige wouldn't be able to lower) so UKIP can't lower the figures any more without causing damage to the UK economy.

 

[robgmun]

Agreed but then why are they even trying to set a target then? Why not just say they want to lower it.

Lower it to what? This is the question they get asked a lot when they say they want to lower it, the 50K number is only floated when pushed. It was only ever a UKIP approximate wish rather that a hammered into stone target (It never was)

I too want to see it down to the mid-10's of thousands, but when UKIP says it (and to be fair the same thing happens to other parties) it's suddenly a set in stone number in the eyes of the media.

Cameron's only real mistake was to say the words "Cast-Iron Guarantee"

 

[v0n]

I listened to the interview this morning on the way in to work. Bearing in mind I cannot stand Farage and dislike what his party stands for immensely what he was saying was actually fairly sensible. Immigration based purely on need rather than just where you happened to be born isn't really that bad a policy. It is however completely unworkable whilst we are part of the EU.

Points system, as anyone who had to go through one of these will tell you, is always worse for both ends "of the stick", because by default it discriminates based on age (young nuclear physicist is more welcome than old, seasoned nuclear physicist) and marital status (nuclear physicist with housemaker wife and 4 kids is less welcome than a single bachelor nuclear physicist, even though the latter is less likely to integrate "into society") etc.

The true problem with Nige's pipe dream though is that unlike Australia, the majority of foreign workforce in Britain is performing bottom jobs that locals do not want or in wage bracket locals do not accept. So, what kind of point system would be applied to make sure Britain has enough seasonal fruit pickers, packers and kitchen porters? Unless they will install portable clogged toilets and temporary walls to paint and tile for every flight from Poland at Heathrow to verify "skillset match".

One thing that was interesting in Farage interview this morning was that he admitted to the fact that "quotas and targets won't work" and cancelled UKIPs immigration target, despite UKIP press secretary providing solid quota number just yesterday. Farage's u-turn not only shows just how fragile and untested their ideas are, but also releases conservatives from failing immigration targets, stopping half of the UKIP pre-election attack line mid air...

 

[ubersonic]

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that immigration is increasing because the government is failing when in reality it's the opposite, because our economy is doing better each year the are more people wanting to come here to work, in 2014 an extra 54,000 people came from none EU countries to work in the UK (compared to 2013) and the were an extra 269,000 EU citizens employed in the UK compared to 2013. In addition foreign students coming (paying) to use our universities had risen almost 20,000.

 

[Mr Jack]

I didn't think i had to spell it out to you but couldn't Nigel Farage be taking the average on the whole time frame?

If he meant that then he phrased his comments very poorly indeed.

I asked you what the average was between 1950 and 2001 because you seem to know that he was wrong but you didn't know.

It's somewhere between five and ten thousand; so he'd still be wrong even if that is what he meant.

You'd have thought that someone like Farage who bangs on about immigration so constantly would be well up on figures like these and able to talk cogently about them.

 

[Mr Jack]

In addition foreign students coming (paying) to use our universities had risen almost 20,000.

There was a slight increase compared to the last quarter estimate but it was not statistically significant; and it represents a sharp drop from 2010 figures (see the third chart on this page), what's more if you drill down into those figures you find there's been a huge drop in number of students coming from India from 108,000 to 36,000 (source). I'd also note that the overall fall of around 60,000 students/annum is almost entirely made up of the most valuable non-EU students.

 

[Mr Jack]

VICE's report of a trip to the UKIP conference is worth a read.

 

[scorza]

Considering how David Cameron is always telling us that the lead of the opposition is a wimp, a lightweight, lacking of gravitas etc - why is he so scared of going one-on-one against Ed Milliband in a live TV debate? Especially as in 2010 it was David Cameron who said that these leaders' debates were "fundamental" to the democratic process.

 

[robgmun]

They're both cowards when it comes to Nigel Farage,

I will give Nick Clegg credit for at least doing the debate with him, but him losing so badly probably scared the other leaders off

 

[Dolph]

Considering how David Cameron is always telling us that the lead of the opposition is a wimp, a lightweight, lacking of gravitas etc - why is he so scared of going one-on-one against Ed Milliband in a live TV debate? Especially as in 2010 it was David Cameron who said that these leaders' debates were "fundamental" to the democratic process.

If we are asking loaded questions, why have the broadcasters been so determined to configure the debates unfairly?

Can you say what you think is unreasonable about the position of downing Street as outlined in the below letter sent yesterday?

Dear Sue,

I am writing to you in your capacity as chair of the broadcasters’ “leaders’ debates” committee.

As you know, I have had serious concerns about the way in which this has been handled from the start.

Despite the prime minister having been clear about his concern around holding debates in the short campaign, you did not consult us before issuing a press release last October outlining your plans for three debates during that period.

Had you consulted us, we could have also told you that we also did not think it was appropriate to exclude the Green party from the process.

Despite all of this, we then entered into negotiations in good faith, during which I made the case for a more representative debates structure, including the Greens. It is fair to say that the desire to exclude the Greens was clear from all other parties present.

Three months later – and again without consultation – you surprised us again by proposing a new seven-party structure, this time not only inviting the Greens, but Plaid Cymru and the SNP as well. Again, this was a flawed proposal – that has resulted in the DUP initiating what appears to be legitimate legal action.

Since this proposal has been suggested, there has been chaos. In recent weeks, you have avoided letting the parties sit in a room to hammer out proposals, making progress impossible.

In order to cut through this chaotic situation I am willing to make the following proposal:

There should be one 90-minute debate between seven party leaders before the short campaign. As well as the prime minister, the leaders of the Green party, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SNP and Ukip should invited. The leader of the DUP should be allowed to make his case for why he should be involved. If the broadcasters cannot agree amongst themselves who hosts the debate, lots should be drawn, though the debate should be freely available to whoever wants to broadcast it. In order for it to be organised in time, the debate should take place during the week beginning the 23rd March. I will make myself available to negotiate the details. Having been the editor of numerous broadcast news and current affairs programmes, I know this is ample time to organise a programme.

This is our final offer, and to be clear, given the fact this has been a deeply unsatisfactory process and we are within a month of the short campaign, the prime minister will not be participating in more than one debate.

Yours sincerely,

Craig Oliver
Prime minister’s director of communications

 

[scorza]

If we are asking loaded questions, why have the broadcasters been so determined to configure the debates unfairly?

Can you say what you think is unreasonable about the position of downing Street as outlined in the below letter sent yesterday?

Pretty much all of it. Firstly this is the longest general election campaign certainly in my memory, so why is he calling it a short campaign? The precedent for the debates was set during the last general election campaign, which had the full support of Cameron, why is it inappropriate to have them again in that format? Even the Greens don't want their leader fully involved with these debates any more It's not unreasonable imo to have a one-on-one debate with the only two people who can become Prime Minister after the general election.

Oliver is trying his best to make sure these debates don't happen. The main tactic he's using seems to be to try and involve as many parties as possible to make it a TV non-event - the term "democratic boreathon" has been used and is appropriate imo. Dolph - will you agree with me that the complete absence of a leaders' debate in some form will diminish democracy in this country? I really hope they empty chair the PM if he doesn't turn up.

 

[robgmun]

Dolph - will you agree with me that the complete absence of a leaders' debate in some form will diminish democracy in this country? I really hope they empty chair the PM if he doesn't turn up.

Although no debates before the 2010 election didn't diminish democracy, i do hope they go ahead and empty chair the PM too.

 

[scorza]

Although no debates before the 2010 election didn't diminish democracy, i do hope they go ahead and empty chair the PM too.

Diminish as in having the debates for the first time in 2010 improved our democratic process imo, so going back to no debates equals diminishing democracy for me.

 

[Dolph]

The complete absence of the leadership debates would be a shame (although it is worth remembering that we do not vote for the pm in this country, we vote for a local mp who does not have to share the views of the party leader), but it would be highly unfair to blame Cameron exclusively for the problem (not that unfair and dishonest blaming has ever bothered you, so I doubt you'll stop).

The makeup of the debates has been consistently flawed, first by excluding the greens (who have an mp) and including ukip (who when the decision was made, had no MPs). Given that the greens take primarily from labour and ukip predominantly from the Tories, this could have been considered a partisan decision, but we can give the broadcasters the benefit of the doubt for October.

The second proposal, however, definitely suggests bias. By adding plaid and the snp, they added two parties more likely to attack the government than labour but who only stand in part of the uk, but then they excluded the DUP, who also only stand in part of the uk, but tend to align with the conservatives, despite the DUP having more MPs than both the SNP and plaid (in fact, on 8 vs the SNP's 6 and Plaid's 3, they almost equal the two combined). At this point, it is hard to believe the broadcasters are this stupid, and it is definitely starting to look like a deliberate plan to bias the panel.

Why would you willingly expose yourself to a group that has perceivably shown bias against you on multiple occasions?

 

[platypus]

Diminish as in having the debates for the first time in 2010 improved our democratic process imo, so going back to no debates equals diminishing democracy for me.

Why do you think these debates improved our democratic process?

I remember them as nothing more than grandstanding, showboating and an awful lot of shouting and arguing with very little of substance, and a crossover from American Politics that I'd rather well do without.

 

[scorza]

Why do you think these debates improved our democratic process?

I remember them as nothing more than grandstanding, showboating and an awful lot of shouting and arguing with very little of substance, and a crossover from American Politics that I'd rather well do without.

I just thought that it was a rare opportunity to see and hear the party leaders put their views across and have them challenged in a more inclusive format than PMQs. While Dolph is technically correct that we don't vote for the PM we vote for an MP whose party determines the PM, the reality is that people do decide which party to vote for and a large part of the decision is based on who that party has as its leader.

 

[Mr Jack]

Utterly cowardly from Cameron. Pathetic, especially given what he said in opposition; which I hope gets a lot of play. Even worse than his cavalier attitude to letting the electorate see his policies in debate is his insistence that he will only take part in the debates prior to the six week period and, critically, prior to the time that the Tory manifesto is published.

The broadcasters haven't exactly covered themselves in glory but Cameron has been deliberately playing silly games with this from the start.