Poll: Mods, one last poll before tomorrow?

[The Mad Rapper]

The main reason is that Cameron won't go into a coalition Lib-dem unless they roll over completely

"He does not share power"

If it makes the difference between him gaining power and not, then surely he would?

 

[Luseac]

I'm not aware that the LibDems have stated their policy on the new aircraft carriers. The eurofighter is a cold war relic, and if we don't really need any more of them then the contract should be cancelled - the UK government shouldn't be giving into bullying from quasi-American defence contractors like BAE Systems over this. A like-for-like Trident replacement is not the only answer, I'm glad one political party has the balls to question the consensus on this.

Power projection and being a major international player on the defence stage is all very well and good, but we simply can't afford to do it as we have been any more. Cuts have to be made, if that means we become less important in the geopolitical arena then so be it.

Nick Clegg is very anti-establishment, and from what I can make of him, wants the U.K to relinquish the few remaining relics that make the U.K. a leading world player, I am more than confident that we wouldn't get both carriers under a Lib-Dem government (it would be hard to cancel the first, as the steel has already been cut). I understand many people on these boards have differing views, and it is certainly easy to sit here and say money should be poured into schools and hospitals... But what happens to our UN security council seat if we lose a permanent nuclear deterrent? What happens when the Russians send over a bomber (as they do about 3 times a month) when the Eurofighters are stretched? And what happens if oil is stuck in the Falkland’s and Argentina invades? What would we do then? Borrow the French Carrier and become a laughing stock?

 

[dirtydog]

If it was that easy someone would have done it already.

That doesn't follow at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. At the moment, there is no will.

Additionally, it is a fact that illegal immigrants are routinely NOT deported even when identified and caught. So we already have a de facto amnesty because, as I said, there is no will to remove these people.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

We need to imbrace it like the french, hasn't done them any harm, hasn't it?

Except that who in their right minds is going to agree to a nuclear power station being built in their locality?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Nick Clegg is very anti-establishment, and from what I can make of him, wants the U.K to relinquish the few remaining relics that make the U.K. a leading world player, I am more than confident that we wouldn't get both carriers under a Lib-Dem government (it would be hard to cancel the first, as the steel has already been cut). I understand many people on these boards have differing views, and it is certainly easy to sit here and say money should be poured into schools and hospitals... But what happens to our UN security council seat if we lose a permanent nuclear deterrent? What happens when the Russians send over a bomber (as they do about 3 times a month) when the Eurofighters are stretched? And what happens if oil is stuck in the Falkland’s and Argentina invades? What would we do then? Borrow the French Carrier and become a laughing stock?

The simple fact is that the Navy has been cut so severely under successive Governments that I would be amazed if we had anything like sufficient ships to create another task force as things stand today.

 

[Luseac]

The simple fact is that the Navy has been cut so severely under successive Governments that I would be amazed if we had anything like sufficient ships to create another task force as things stand today.

I think if we literally threw every ship we have we might scrape a win, the point i'm making though is our chances would fall from medicore to nil without a carrier group.

 

[Nix]

Erm there is a 3rd option - enforcing the law and deporting illegal immigrants. Not rolling out the red carpet and making us more of a soft touch than we already are.

Okay, dd. I'll bite. How do you propose finding the illegal immigrants, hmm? The fact that they're here illegally tends to indicate that they're quite good at hiding in the first place, does it not?

At least with the Lib Dem's policy (something which you might need to take those ****ing blinkers off to try and appreciate) is it will bring those already here into the open and thus processed. The complete undesirables will of course be removed. Those who stay will instead of simply hiding away and frustrating the state, will be paying taxes like everyone else which is actually in our benefit. They're already here, so why not be pragmatic and deal with it? No-one except the facsist idiots that are the BNP are supporting a complete and utter deportation; it just isn't going to happen!

So, what are we left with? People hiding away, unaccountable, and essentially free from law and taxation? Or a productive move to help get these people paying towards the system and accountable within law? It follows that an accountable and readily obtainable citizen is far better for our crime statistics. But, of course, you're too blinkered to realise or acknowledge this as you're too busy beating your chest and building your electric fences.

That doesn't follow at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. At the moment, there is no will.

Additionally, it is a fact that illegal immigrants are routinely NOT deported even when identified and caught. So we already have a de facto amnesty because, as I said, there is no will to remove these people.

Because there doesn't need to be a will. Anyone with an ounce of empathy (and not just empathy for those who look the bloody same) will realise that we're all human beings. None of use get to choose what life we lead. By all means, deport those who are taking the **** (for which funnily, there is already systems in place - they simply need to be improved), but why deport those who genuinely want to rebuild and live an honest life in a 'better' country?

 

[dirtydog]

Okay, dd. I'll bite. How do you propose finding the illegal immigrants, hmm? The fact that they're here illegally tends to indicate that they're quite good at hiding in the first place, does it not?

I didn't say we should hunt them all down. But when we do come across them, we should enforce the law and deport them. Not a radical concept really Is it?

And no it isn't hard to find them at all, we find them all the time - we just rarely deport them.

 

[bam0]

That doesn't follow at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. At the moment, there is no will.

Additionally, it is a fact that illegal immigrants are routinely NOT deported even when identified and caught. So we already have a de facto amnesty because, as I said, there is no will to remove these people.

Sure, you could go round every address in the country checking the people there have a right to live in this country and deporting those that don't. But the issue isn't hot enough that people will want to see cuts in other services to do that. It's always a question of money and I imagine it's not financially worthwhile to run something even less draconian than that. Ignoring also the logistical side of it, how do you even know where the people you find are supposed to go back to? I don't expect they'll exactly be cooperative. Basically it's not practical in any sense to round them up and send them back, if you accept that you then have to consider what to do about them, I believe the Lib Dem proposal is better than the status quo.

 

[bam0]

Except that who in their right minds is going to agree to a nuclear power station being built in their locality?

Honestly? I would, I would prefer to live close to a Nuclear power station than almost any other type, certainly far more preferable than coal fired power stations.

 

[dirtydog]

Because there doesn't need to be a will. Anyone with an ounce of empathy (and not just empathy for those who look the bloody same) will realise that we're all human beings. None of use get to choose what life we lead. By all means, deport those who are taking the **** (for which funnily, there is already systems in place - they simply need to be improved), but why deport those who genuinely want to rebuild and live an honest life in a 'better' country?

It would be lovely to let everyone who wants to come here and work and build a better life, come here... but we're a little island, and we're full And illegal immigration is against the law... that's where the illegal part comes in. I think we should enforce that law.

 

[Nix]

It would be lovely to let everyone who wants to come here and work and build a better life, come here... but we're a little island, and we're full And illegal immigration is against the law... that's where the illegal part comes in. I think we should enforce that law.

Prove to me we're full.

 

[dirtydog]

Sure, you could go round every address in the country checking the people there have a right to live in this country and deporting those that don't. But the issue isn't hot enough that people will want to see cuts in other services to do that. It's always a question of money and I imagine it's not financially worthwhile to run something even less draconian than that. Ignoring also the logistical side of it, how do you even know where the people you find are supposed to go back to? I don't expect they'll exactly be cooperative. Basically it's not practical in any sense to round them up and send them back, if you accept that you then have to consider what to do about them, I believe the Lib Dem proposal is better than the status quo.

I haven't said we should actively hunt for illegal immigrants - what a silly straw man.

 

[dirtydog]

Prove to me we're full.

Full in the sense the level of population impinges on quality of life and puts a huge burden on public services and infrastructure. For proof of that, go outside or read a newspaper.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I think if we literally threw every ship we have we might scrape a win, the point i'm making though is our chances would fall from medicore to nil without a carrier group.

I agree we do need Carriers - how old is the Ark Royal now? It must be on it's last legs.

Our carriers do suck balls compared to the Nimitz class though

 

[Mr Jack]

Except that who in their right minds is going to agree to a nuclear power station being built in their locality?

Anyone who's more swayed by facts than paranoid fantasy and doesn't live in an area of outstanding natural beauty that would be harmed by building a large power station of any stripe. Also, don't both the Tory and Labour proposals intend building new plants at the sites of existing plants.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Honestly? I would, I would prefer to live close to a Nuclear power station than almost any other type, certainly far more preferable than coal fired power stations.

Really? Each to their own I suppose. I grew up near a coal fired power station as a child, it never bothered us in the slightest.

 

[bam0]

I haven't said we should actively hunt for illegal immigrants - what a silly straw man.

Those who get caught for comitting crimes would still be deported (and they should be now), what about the rest? What's your proposal there?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Anyone who's more swayed by facts than paranoid fantasy and doesn't live in an area of outstanding natural beauty that would be harmed by building a large power station of any stripe. Also, don't both the Tory and Labour proposals intend building new plants at the sites of existing plants.

With respect, you're making a lot of assumptions. I wouldn't want a nuclear power station next to me regardless of where I lived. I am sure many others feel the same.

 

[Glaucus]

Except that who in their right minds is going to agree to a nuclear power station being built in their locality?

All the people who have already lived near one. Anyone with half a brain and not brainwashed by scaremongers.