Anthony said:
Well there are definately 'too many' people within Britain. Period. Population definately exceeds space, not to mention economic resources.
More people leave this country every year than enter it. Even if that wasn't true - this country is far from over-populated, just compare population density in this country to that of other European countries if you think there isn't enough space for the population.
Asylum seekers bring economic benefits to the country. For example, asylum seekers are often highly skilled, because when there is conflict or instability in a country, they are most likely to have the resources to escape.
I don't know where you get your figures, I wouldn't mind actually having a link attached to that information, because nothing you say can convince me otherwise that we are definately taking in more refugees than France, not to mention Germany, who's 'Gasterbeiter' years have been over and done with for quite some time.
It's from the
Refugee Council.
I never said we were 'swamped', but I do believe we are taking too many people from too many countries. ONE person from a country that does NOT allow British citizens to live there is one person to many. Its a question of principle; how do you like the fact that Britain has to take in everyone who comes knocking at the door, whereas the British can't do the same to the country from which they came from? It isn't fair. Especially when we have problems with the NHS that ARE due to the Conservatives.
A question of principle? If this government was based on the "democratic socialist" principles of the Labour Party it would have done a lot more to fix the problems with the NHS, and not through increasing NI for people earning under ?30,000 annually, but, for example, through increasing Britain's corporation tax to the European average, instead of cutting it further as they have done.
In any case, it's hardly a principled decision to send families back to an Afghanistan which is still being bombed by the United States. I don't see British citizens queuing up to live there, or in Iraq, Somalia, or any other country which British refugees come from. If asylum policy is to be based on principles, it should be based on the principles enshrined in the Geneva Convention on Refugees which state that anyone has the right to travel to the UK and seek asylum here and remain until a decision is made.
Imagine if you found that your life was in danger in the UK, what would you want other countries policy towards you to be? Would you want them to lock you up in a detention centre? Would you like to be sent to an unfamiliar area where you had no access to people who spoke your language and no access to legal advice? Would you want to live on just ?37 a week?
My point is why should BRITAIN have to take everyone in. I don't see everybody flocking to France and Germany, as I have mentioned before, because their laws are stricter and have a very very different outlook on refugees.
But as I said in my last post, we're not taking everyone in. Less than 2% of refugees even seek asylum here.
Everybody in Britain, however, knew that the BNP didn't stand a chance. If anyone is in danger of right-wing policies and rascist attitudes, it is not Britain.
Well, the BNP did win three council seats in Burnley. Fortunately two of them are due for re-election in May so hopefully with a strong anti-racist campaign they'll be defeated. I don't think it's true to say that everyone knew the BNP didn't stand a chance, they were expected to win several seats in Oldham and it's only due to the hugely successful campaign against them that they were defeated there.
The fact is, I do NOT think that New Labour and the Conservatives are indistinguishable. New Labour talks about the reform of NHS, the Conservatives talk about complete privatisation of it. New Labour talks about the potential involvement with Europe and the Euro, the Conservatives maintain a return to 'Thatcher' economics and politics - the USA is the way. New Labour talks about negotiation with the Unions, the Conservatives talk about the abolishment of freedoms for industrial action for certain individuals.
I completely agree with you - New Labour aren't the same as the Tories, sorry if I gave the impression that I believe that. I think they've moved to the right a lot, but there's just no comparison with the party that gave us Margaret "there's no such thing as society" Thatcher. Besides the structure of the party, particularly the link to the unions is completely different to that of the Tories. I would be concerned if that link ended though, as the IPPR seem to think it should.
However, I agree that New Labour is a waste. Its Blair denying the political evolution of the Labour party, its him confusing the political orientation of the Party. At the moment, New Labour is wondering whether it is indeed Labour, or whether it should come out of the political closet as Old Conservatives. His weak leadership is not needed, and he will, ironically, be Labour's downfall in the next election.
Why do you think Blair won the leadership then? Was it just desparation at being out of power for so many years that led the membership to believe they had to move to the right in order to be elected?
I'm not sure that Labour will lose the next election though. The Tories are so discredited that it's hard to envisage them as serious opposition. They've lost credibility with the average voter with their complete lack of policy on any meaningful issue, they've lost credibility with business because of their anti-Euro sentiments, it seems the only people who still have any respect for the Tory party is the Tory press.
And if Blair does go, who do you think is going to replace him? Seems that most people expect it to be Brown, but the suggestion it could be Blunkett is, frankly pretty terrifying.