Proportional representation -- yea or nay?

[littlebabyjesus]

the same circumstances they are currently allowed to check the details under labours points system.

Which are what?

btw, you seem to be repeatedly falling into the trap of assuming that criticism of the lib dems implies approval of some other party. It doesn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

..with the massive difference that today they're not only allowed in specific regiins! Deport them to the east mids.

They'll be sent to Coventry.

 

[butchersapron]

The poor poor sods.

 

[Tacita]

bare in mind that the alternative on offer from labour and tories is for them not to be allowed into the country at all.

is that better?

see my 'not giving a fuck' response to the op poll

I should ask the libdems to screw me because they'll only beat me on wednesdays?

 

[free spirit]

Simple enough fs but irrelevant. The key function of the pass laws was to keep people within specific areas whilst using them as cheap labour. You've just outlined exactly how that would work here and how that's official lib-dem policy. You're undecided on it. I'm not.

that was one function of them.

another function of them was to create police state conditions for the non-white population of the country, which is something this proposal absolutely would not do, and is a major fundamental difference.

even within the function you mention though there are major differences, in that there's no restriction of movement, no restriction of where someone can live, only a restriction on where they can work on a regional basis, so it's not exactly massively restrictive.

Like I say, I'm not entirely sure about it, and can see some problems with it, but comparisons to the SA pass laws give a major false impression.

 

[the button]

another function of them was to create police state conditions for the non-white population of the country, which is something this proposal absolutely would not do, and is a major fundamental difference.

Maybe one for the second term, eh?

 

[weltweit]

On the R4 news it says that Brown and Clegg have had a secret meeting.

The plot thickens.

 

[free spirit]

Which are what?

where there's a suspicion for whatever reason that the employer is employing illegal immigrants AFAIK, though there may also be an element of random checks on employers.

btw, you seem to be repeatedly falling into the trap of assuming that criticism of the lib dems implies approval of some other party. It doesn't.

at the moment there are essentially 3 immigration policies on the table, lib dem, labour and conservative. They are basically the options available to the country after this election, so by attacking the lib dem policy you're making it more likely we'll end up with either the labour or tory policy.

remember the other main element of lib dem immigration policy is an amnesty for all current illegal immigrants in the country, so we'd basically be starting with a clean slate on immigration and trying to set up a system that works properly from this point forward rather than maintaining the current fiction that condemns hundreds of thousands to working in the black economy.

 

[the button]

On the R4 news it says that Brown and Clegg have had a secret meeting.

The plot thickens.

Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown met in the Foreign Office this afternoon, says BBC political editor Nick Robinson. It was "constructive" but resulted in "nothing definitive", he says, adding that Mr Clegg was updating the prime minister on the situation and that David Cameron knew about the meeting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

^ That secret meeting, or another one?

 

[butchersapron]

where there's a suspicion for whatever reason that the employer is employing illegal immigrants AFAIK, though there may also be an element of random checks on employers.

at the moment there are essentially 3 immigration policies on the table, lib dem, labour and conservative. They are basically the options available to the country after this election, so by attacking the lib dem policy you're making it more likely we'll end up with either the labour or tory policy.

remember the other main element of lib dem immigration policy is an amnesty for all current illegal immigrants in the country, so we'd basically be starting with a clean slate on immigration and trying to set up a system that works properly from this point forward rather than maintaining the current fiction that condemns hundreds of thousands to working in the black economy.

Just like what nick said in the debate! Crackers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

at the moment there are essentially 3 immigration policies on the table, lib dem, labour and conservative. They are basically the options available to the country after this election, so by attacking the lib dem policy you're making it more likely we'll end up with either the labour or tory policy.

Nope. I'll attack all three, thanks, if I think they're wrong. Can you explain how attacking all three makes it more likely that we end up with labour or tory?

 

[cesare]

where there's a suspicion for whatever reason that the employer is employing illegal immigrants AFAIK, though there may also be an element of random checks on employers.

at the moment there are essentially 3 immigration policies on the table, lib dem, labour and conservative. They are basically the options available to the country after this election, so by attacking the lib dem policy you're making it more likely we'll end up with either the labour or tory policy.

remember the other main element of lib dem immigration policy is an amnesty for all current illegal immigrants in the country, so we'd basically be starting with a clean slate on immigration and trying to set up a system that works properly from this point forward rather than maintaining the current fiction that condemns hundreds of thousands to working in the black economy.

Give them an amnesty so we know who they are, in order to restrict them.

 

[weltweit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

^ That secret meeting, or another one?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it was that one!

 

[free spirit]

Maybe one for the second term, eh?

the lib dems are basically the party with protection of civil liberties deep within its core, so the chances of them doing anything to move us towards a police state are somewhere between non-existent and fuck all.

 

[butchersapron]

It's just fucking hackery now fs.

 

[the button]

the lib dems are basically the party with protection of civil liberties deep within its core

Other than the civil liberties of non-EU migrants, but I don't suppose they really matter.

 

[cesare]

the lib dems are basically the party with protection of civil liberties deep within its core, so the chances of them doing anything to move us towards a police state are somewhere between non-existent and fuck all.

Absolute rubbish! Protection of civil liberties, do me a favour.



-->> http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr168/nineham.htm <<--

 

[free spirit]

Give them an amnesty so we know who they are, in order to restrict them.

no. in order to tax them and ensure they have full employment rights and other rights available to all uk citizens (ok yes this could be seen as restriction, but it's the same level of restriction as applies to all uk citizens)

the amnesty is a separate policy to the regional points based immigration system for new economic migrants.

We will let law-abiding families earn
citizenship. We will allow people who have been in Britain without
the correct papers for ten years, but speak English, have a clean
record and want to live here long-term to earn their citizenship.
This route to citizenship will not apply to people arriving after 2010.

 

[Acolyte]

remember the other main element of lib dem immigration policy is an amnesty for all current illegal immigrants in the country, so we'd basically be starting with a clean slate on immigration and trying to set up a system that works properly from this point forward rather than maintaining the current fiction that condemns hundreds of thousands to working in the black economy.

I believe that the LD policy of amnesty applies ONLY to those who have been here over 10 years (& how do they prove that?) Therefore it is NOTHING LIKR the 'clean start' you claim for it and wouuld leave many / most in the same position as at present viz working illegally subject to gang-masters etc

 

[free spirit]

Other than the civil liberties of non-EU migrants, but I don't suppose they really matter.

erm yes, non-eu migrants already here would be given the chance to become full uk citizens, with all the civil liberties and rights that that entails.

new non-eu migrants would be given the opportunity to work here legally but in some cases with restrictions on which regions they'd be entitled to work in, rather than under the current system where they aren't allowed to come at all, and are forced to work illegally if they want to come and work.

 

[free spirit]

I believe that the LD policy of amnesty applies ONLY to those who have been here over 10 years (& how do they prove that?) Therefore it is NOTHING LIKR the 'clean start' you claim for it and wouuld leave many / most in the same position as at present viz working illegally subject to gang-masters etc

personally I'd favour a full amnesty, and think 10 year rule's a cop out, so I'll not try to defend it, other than to say that it's a step in the right direction, and I'd hope they saw sense and altered it to a full amnesty.

 

[sihhi]

the lib dems are basically the party with protection of civil liberties deep within its core, so the chances of them doing anything to move us towards a police state are somewhere between non-existent and fuck all.

Of course they don't, their councils only pump money into companies which move us towards a police state.

http://uk.sodexo.com/uken/media-centre/2007/richmond.asp

http://www.antimetrix.org/2009/02/sodexo-meals-support-deportation-and.html

 

[the button]

new non-eu migrants would be given the opportunity to work here legally but in some cases with restrictions on which regions they'd be entitled to work in

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat at odds with Article 13 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Hardly the policy of a party with civil liberties written through it like a stick of Blackpool rock, I'd say.

 

[free spirit]

Absolute rubbish! Protection of civil liberties, do me a favour.



-->> http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr168/nineham.htm <<--

one example from one council from an article written by the socialist review in 1993... how could I possibly argue with such powerful evidence

 

[butchersapron]

This amnesty bollocks actually means that those who've been here for 10 years blah blah get the chance to become legalised. No that they will become legalised. They themselves argue that only a "small percentage" will go on to win citizenship. It's not amnesty, it's the exact opposite.

Spin that.

 

[free spirit]

Doesn't that strike you as somewhat at odds with Article 13 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?



http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Hardly the policy of a party with civil liberties written through it like a stick of Blackpool rock, I'd say.

erm, they'd still have freedom of movement and residence.

 

[butchersapron]

one example from one council from an article written by the socialist review in 1993... how could I possibly argue with such powerful evidence

It's true and very well known. Whatever the local council overseeing body found them guilty - but not the BNP oddly enough.

 

[free spirit]

This amnesty bollocks actually means that those who've been here for 10 years blah blah get the chance to become legalised. No that they will become legalised. They themselves argue that only a "small percentage" will go on to win citizenship. It's not amnesty, it's the exact opposite.

Spin that.

no spinning, just correcting

personally I'd favour a full amnesty, and think 10 year rule's a cop out, so I'll not try to defend it, other than to say that it's a step in the right direction, and I'd hope they saw sense and altered it to a full amnesty.

 

[the button]

erm, they'd still have freedom of movement and residence.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

How about that one, then?

 

[butchersapron]

erm, they'd still have freedom of movement and residence.

No they wouldn't - you said so yourself:

in fact it would only give powers to check people's eligibility to work in an area through their employers records

when they're found not to have them by this internal border police? What next?

Head in the sand.