Clegg

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, the problem is that electricity shortages start in about 3 years time and commissioning a nuclear power station takes a lot longer. Meanwhile, world gas supplies and sources are increasing; gas power stations produce about half the carbon dioxide of a coal plant and are quick to commission. There is a rational argument for saying that the interim solution is to get some gas stations up and running.

[Palisadoes]

I think Clegg did well in his toughest bits (Trident, Europe and immigration - I think he dominated immigration 'how can you deport them when you don't know where they live?')

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

... and had a great closing argument.  Cameron I thought started strong but his closing argument was weak

The closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

I also didn't like the fact that he seemed to promise free eye tests/prescriptions for the elderly just because he was challenged.

That is how it seemed, but the Tories hadn't actually hadn't stated a policy. Because of this, Labour stated that the Tories would not promise these things. This turned out to be false, and Labour had just taken the negative option, with no basis for printing and publishing such "lies".

It has since turned out that the SNP and also the Liberal Democrats have criticised Labour for doing the same things to them. This has led to people saying that Labour have been caught red handed.

Paddy's spinning for the BBC :Wub:

I do like Paddy, but I did find it a bit ruude when he was shouting over the others.

[grumbler]

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

This highlights the "stupidity" of any argument:  everytactic has "been proven to be a failed tactic" somewhere.

The closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

I get the strong vibe that the relevance of opening and closing arguments in your mind are directly proportional to the ability of Cameron to deliver in them. 

[Josquius]

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

Except deporting them doesn't work. Its being tried and and its failing. Everyone always wants to be tough and have no illegal immigrants at all but thats a lot easier said than done.
Rather than let them continue to exist illegally working on the black economy (at best) it is better to include them legally.

[Palisadoes]

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

This highlights the "stupidity" of any argument:  everytactic has "been proven to be a failed tactic" somewhere.

Haha! True!

The closing and opening arguments are irrelevant, IMO. I much prefer the actual debating.

I get the strong vibe that the relevance of opening and closing arguments in your mind are directly proportional to the ability of Cameron to deliver in them. 

Nah, they're just boring and rehearsed. Completely uninteresting and they just allude to the actual content which is contained in the debate subjects.

That kind of highlights the stupidity of his argument: he won't deport the illegals, but let them stay instead. It's been proven to be a failed tactic elsewhere too.

Except deporting them doesn't work. Its being tried and and its failing. Everyone always wants to be tough and have no illegal immigrants at all but thats a lot easier said than done.
Rather than let them continue to exist illegally working on the black economy (at best) it is better to include them legally.

Deporting them does work, it's just that the authorities have been crap at finding them to deport them.

I'd rather keep them on the 'black economy' - they likely won't be earning over £10,000 (so won't be paying taxes), and because they earn so little they will become eligible for benefits. An amnesty would just encourage people to come here illegally more as it sets a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty every now and again and allow them to stay. Moreover, by "it's proven not to work", I meant "it's proven to make things worse".

[Warspite]

I can't wait for the Lib Dem mansion tax to be ripped apart.

[grumbler]

Deporting them does work, it's just that the authorities have been crap at finding them to deport them.

In other words, deporting them does work, except that it doesn't work.

I'd rather keep them on the 'black economy' - they likely won't be earning over £10,000 (so won't be paying taxes), and because they earn so little they will become eligible for benefits. An amnesty would just encourage people to come here illegally more as it sets a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty every now and again and allow them to stay. Moreover, by "it's proven not to work", I meant "it's proven to make things worse".

The policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

[Palisadoes]

The policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

Maybe so, but amnesties have been proven to be more worse than other ("conventional") methods.

[Josquius]

The policies you advocate have also been proven to make things worse.   The choice should not be between two policies that have been proven to worsen the situation.  I haven' followed the UK debate enough to know if someone has proposed a choice that offer a chance of making things better.

Maybe so, but amnesties have been proven to be more worse than other ("conventional") methods.

They have?
I missed the last time we tried it. When was that?

[Palisadoes]

In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

[Josquius]

In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

I really don't see how it would make things worse.
People already risk life and limb to get here at all costs. You can't really encourage them to come anymore than they already are.
Also I can find nothing about the US or Spanish amnesties  being particularly (well...except in the case of Spain having them pretty regularly. That seems daft) bad and making things worse.

The amnesty idea to me sounds like a far from perfect solution but at least Clegg is proposing a different approach. Yelling at the problem until it goes away doesn't work utterly. This is untried in the UK and the past experience of the other amnesties abroad is there to be built in.

What I could see this doing is sorting out the desirable, decent illegals who aren't doing any harm to the country from those who we really should be seeking to deport at all costs.

Rather than just picking at this idea and saying 'it wouldnt work!' why not suggest something which would work instead?

Overall though immigration isn't really such a issue for me. Its greatly exagerated a problem in the media and we've got more pressing concerns- ones which good solutions (rather than least bad solutions) can be found for.

[Martinus]

Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

[grumbler]

In other countries (Spain, USA, etc...). I don't see how an amnesty which would be conducted here would result in any different outcome than amnesties for illegal migrants elsewhere.

The conditional amnesty portions of the IRCA are viewed as successful in the US.  That probably counts as "making the problem worse" to those who want very much to believe that all amnesties are unsuccessful, but to those of us without that axe to grind, it doesn't count as making things worse.

What makes immigration numbers "worse" is economic success.  The number of immigrants entering the US remained steady until that fucker Bill Clinton embarked the US on a program of steady economic growth, and then illegal immigration became, as you put it, "more worse."

[Neil]

We've had decades of both parties courting Murdoch and his media empire. He's now burnt his bridges with Labour and teh Lib Dems and that could hurt him pretty badly over here. Selling a few extra papers (unlikely) due to a more Europhile Govt pales into insignificance if he doesn't get his customary easy ride on monopolising pay tv, sports rights etc.

That sounds like significant institutionalized corruption where politicians determine media rights based on their relationships.

The British relationship with the media is a bit unusual.

[Warspite]

Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.