GeneralElection2005/Immigration

I'm going to disagree.  They are racist.  The issue of population does need to be discussed.  The two are orthogonal.  They are happily exploiting people's racism in exchange for votes - and this is Evil.  But the basic concept that a person who was not born in the country deserves fewer rights than one who was is racist.  --Vitenka  (We need much freer movement of people, if we're to have free trade)

The Tories aren't racist, as a party. Some of their members are, and perhaps they appeal to racists, but that's quite different. They may appeal to Christians but that doesn't mean they are a Christian party. Even UKIP and the BNP aren't overtly racist - everyone goes to great lengths to appear not to be. Racism is a dirty word, nationalism isn't. -- Xarak

Um - did you just straight facedly call the BNP non-racist?  (I put the Tories in the less extreme seating area of the same boat)  --Vitenka (Still not seeing the difference between nationalism and racism - they're both "hate the other" creeds)

Erm, racism requires an ethnic difference. But nowhere have I even seen a reasonable claim that the Conservative party is even Nationalist yet. --SF

Any slogan that begins "It is not racist to..." is a pretty big pointer.  It's like all those people who say things like "Oh, I'm not a racist but..."  Couching things in 'safe' terms doesn't change their real intent.  --Vitenka

What, when they're introducing a policy which has been called racist repeatedly for no good reason? I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for the Conservative/Liberal? (in Australia, which is where it comes from) immigration policy being racist. Self-interested, yes. Racist, no. --SF

Talking of the BNP, did anyone see their election broadcast last night? Obviously they didn't want to appear too racist (otherwise the BBC would refuse to broadcast it) but they did imply that they thought homelessness is caused by asylum seekers so we shouldn't let any asylum seekers in, a view which any decent thinking person ought to reject. They even singled out Iraqis and Afghans which crossed the line into racism in my opinion. --MawKernewek

I think the BBC dropped the ball on that one. Apparently they got an early version which had terrible sound and picture quality...so they sent it back and demanded a better one. I'd have just broadcast it as it was and leave it to the BNP to explain why they can't even work a camera ^_^ -- Xarak

The premise you are talking about is the basic idea of the nation state; that the first duty of any government is to its own citizens. Save ultra left-wing socialist parties there is nobody who disputes this. If that is your only argument against it you've just called every major political thinker from Hobbes onwards a racist. --SF

From the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." --AC

Followed immediately by "This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens." Alex, I expect better from you that that. --SF

...and even if it wasn't, that doesn't cover all discrimination, just that which affects "human rights and fundamental freedoms". Is the ability to settle in a country of your choice a "human right" or "fundamental freedom"? Should it be? And does it seem to anyone else like that definition includes too little? - MoonShadow

(We need to split this off, too many indents) I'm more pointing out that they feel the need to say that they aren't racist.  That just strikes up an instant "You are lying" response in me.  And I honestly do not see why you're allowed to say "People born here deserve more than people not born here"  Saying "There are too many people in London, we should move some out" is a very different thing.  --Vitenka

(Yes, yes we do). For some reason I don't immeaditely feel "because someone says they aren't something" as a compelling reason to believe that they are. The Conservatives aren't saying "British citizens deserve more than non-British citizens". What they're saying is "As the Government of the United Kingdom, our first duty is to our own citizens. In order to best fulfill that duty we feel it is necessary to restrict the number of non-citizens who can live in the country." --SF

(You first, then :) )Except on their posters - where they are saying, in so many words: "Hate."  I also think about the way they talk about, say, gypsies as basically subhuman and subconciously link it to all the other things people who say things like that say.  --Vitenka  (To reiterate, I don't have a problem with what they say their policy is - only with the subtext of what they are saying, and with their probable real policies.)

;Oops. Okay, I missed that. But I never objected to arguing that something needs to be done about immigration. What I object to is the attitude of fear and suspicion that the parties more commonly called racist promote towards foreigners in general, and of which echoes have been appearing in Conservative statements recently. --AC (conflicting with Vitenka saying something pretty similar)

Well, I'm certainly not about to start defending what their policies aren't, and I don't know how on earth you can claim anything as "their probable real policies" other than what has been announced. I fail to see how the Conservative poster campaign "It's not racist to..." is filled with hate. I think you're confusing the Conservative party and the DailyMail here. I also haven't heard anything from a Conservative MP or spokesman saying gypsies are "subhuman" in any way, just that the system needs to be changed to legislate with them in mind, since it doesn't currently consider their lifestyle. (Only in less liberal language than I just used). I don't see how I can defend them against the charge of promoting an attitude of fear and suspicion. I don't think they are; I think the left-wing in both politics and the news media has a vested intrest in portraying it that way and is probably doing so. The statements in the Conservative manifesto are couched in very pro-immigrant language; the first sentence in the chapter on immigration is "Britain has benefitted from immigration." MichealHoward? has reminded people several times that he's a second-generation immigrant. --SF

Actually, no. An ideal free market has free movement of people as well as of goods and services but this is utterly impossible in practice due to problems with population density and the like. The South East is horribly overpopulated as it is and this is the area where the majority of immigrants arrive and where many of them will end up staying. The concept that your country is supposed to look after it's own citizens first and then consider the rest of the world is called the "nation-state" and is not remotely racist. How can it be, when the citizens come from multiple ethnic backgrounds? Oh, and we never signed up to the Schengen agreement so we have control of our own borders within the EU as far as non-EU citizens are concerned; EU citizens can move anywhere within the Union.  --SF

See above. And yes, I would have fought the election on low tax, low spending, small government and civil liberties. But I'm a libertarian Conservative, and we're outnumbered. --SF

Unfortunately so. It's not a pill the British electorate are prepared to swallow, I think. --Requiem

Nobody's tried to prescribe it yet. --SF

Nobody but the parties nobody will listen to. Somebody needs to remind the Conservatives that the economics of the Right doesn't have to mean the other policies of the Right. --Requiem

Big chunks of the British public are already on private health insurance.  Smaller chunks are on private schooling - I don't think it'd be that hard to push the agenda, if they really wanted to.  --Vitenka (But political parties that think they have a chance are RiskAverse)

The last set of figures I was shown (admittedly three or four years ago now) showed that our health spending was 97% state, compared to 60-70% elsewhere in Europe and 20-30% in the US (varies from State to State). I think Private education (more like 15% of the people, and 20% of the money) is a far larger market. And yes, we've noticed that the Conservative party is, uh, conservative. However, dreams of a Libertarian party willing to take these issues on are likely to remain dreams, unfortunately. (Um, shouldn't we move this somewhere else?) --SF

Ah - spending may be low, but the idea of paying for it yourself is no longer anathema.  The hard part is getting people to pay at all - once you're past that, it's just a case of slowly turning up the heat.  To clarify - those who have private insurance still get most of their stuff paid for by the NHS?.  (Nah, we've got at least five more indents to go, yet - and we've not even started using italics)  --Vitenka

I agree that private health insurance is no longer unthinkable, which it was ten years ago; but the NHS? is still very much the Third Rail of British Politics, to misquote an American aphorism. TonyBlair has been repeatedly attacked noisily for attempts to bring more private finance in, and has generally failed to do so, and he's got the 1337 majority of d00m. (Yes, but it's nothing at all to do with Immigration) --SF

There's that party Robert Kilroy-Silk founded Veritas, but unfortunately (for you) they are not really credible. They would drastically reduce tax, including making the personal allowance £12000 and abolishing the top rate of tax. It has some good points like reducing complexity of the tax system, and eliminating the tax\welfare trap which means that people on low income lose benefits as they earn more which means that the poor in fact have very high effective marginal tax rates. But tax cuts for the rich are not something I would vote for. --MawKernewek

No, I think Veritas being non-credible is a good thing for everyone.  Otherwise they might get in.  (Although the changes they'd need to make to be credible would include sanity, so maybe...)  --Vitenka

I couldn't agree more. I was just thinking from the point of view of a very pro-free markets low tax viewpoint. It's not the viewpoint I hold but some people do want that an would want a party to offer that. The credibility gap comes when you consider where the money for these tax cuts comes from. Not that low taxes are a bad thing but I don't think that people on high incomes are paying too much at the moment. And I don't think withdrawal from the EU or their policies on immigration are good. --MawKernewek

Oh, sure. But again, that's taken into account in the Conservative policy, which is specifically geared to let those most useful to the British economy in. --SF

Likewise the LibDem policy, from what I can gather. - MoonShadow

Then you have ethical issues with brain drain and such. I thought Labour were the ones with the nifty Australian points system?--King DJ

That's definitely Conservative policy; it's also Liberal policy in Australia and I think it's also something similar to Liberal policy in the UK as well... --SF

What's wrong with a brain drain so long as it's in our favour? --Edith (playing DevilsAdvocate)

It increases the Rich-Nation/Poor?-Nation divide which is a bad thing, and arguably bad for the UK in the long run -- Senji

Then again, it allows well-qualified people to get jobs which are better than the ones they'd get in their own country, and siphon part of that money home. --Requiem

Just because Labour don't know any difference between Policy and Presentation doesn't mean you have to fall into the same trap. Personally, you're coming across as far more bigoted that Howard, Letwin or Davis ever do to me. --SF

Hah.  Blame a background where people could actually be driven out of the common room by accusations of "Tory!" :)  But sensibly - at best it's a cynical attempt to trick racists into supporting them.  --Vitenka