If you wanted someone to vote for you...

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Tory Party Bilboard Advertisement

It's not racist to impose limits on imigration...

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Conservatives

Anyone else think this is a particularly brave advertising campaign?

[Deepflow]

no, id say its actually a very cowardly one... all of the tories recent policies either seem to be indistinguishable from labour (e.g health) or pandering to the worst kind of feelings in people (immigration, recent gypsy stuff).

im not sure exactly why you would consider it brave.

[xtrasyn]

It means ´we´re ready to controll you´.

[MAdnRisKy]

Brave in the sense that it could horribly back fire and cost them votes.

That particular bilboard I saw had been defaced with "No it is racist and so are the ............" written so that the dots where where conservative was scrawlled.

I say scrawled because the font they used looks like a scribbled hand written note. Quite ironic then, that the defacing is hard to tell except in boldness from the rest of the text...

[Phil^]

i think its taking advantage of feeling that we're being invaded by immigrants by some people, ie those who would vote for more right-wing parties if there wasnt another party which shared their view on it.

could help to cut the extremists vote i recon so not ENTIRELY a bad thing

[Marilyn Manson]

Of course the overwhelming bulk of the immigration issue is fueled by racism.

People on the whole, when they're candid, aren't saying "Oh deary me, unchecked immigration may have serious social consequences both for the existing British population and for the immigrants themselves.", they're saying "We don't want any more ****ing wogs coming over here."

This isn't to say that immigration isn't a valid issue for debate, or that there isn't a fair measure of serious debate out there. But the overwhelming Sun and Daily Mail tendency isn't part of that.

P.S,

Micheal Howard.




Are you thinking what we're thinking?



[ X ] Anything other than the Tories.

Funded by the Manson Committee.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

It's not racist to impose limits on imigration...

Are you thinking what we're thinking? Conservatives

So much is left unsaid. They know that with ads like this, they're pandering to the bigots who think much worse and validating their beliefs...

In the current climate of paranoia, I don't think it will backfire. But do chavs vote?

[Tactitus]

The UK doesn't have any limits on immigration?

[MAdnRisKy]

it has a case by case basis at least with asylum seekers. (and this is the only area I know anything about and although the two issues are connected they're not the same)

In practice I believe there are tact, but the tory want a hard and fast cap of x number and not a single one more per year or so, which does go against britains tradition of being a haven to those that need one.

[Yahwe]

I think Sir Humphrey would say that it was very courageous.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

no, id say its actually a very cowardly one... all of the tories recent policies either seem to be indistinguishable from labour (e.g health) or pandering to the worst kind of feelings in people (immigration, recent gypsy stuff).

im not sure exactly why you would consider it brave.

It's not that conservative policies are indistinguishable, it's that Labour copies all the good policies, so really, labour policies are indistinguishable from conservatives as opposed to the other way round.

[Marilyn Manson]

Which good ones?!

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Bashar

It's not that conservative policies are indistinguishable, it's that Labour copies all the good policies, so really, labour policies are indistinguishable from conservatives as opposed to the other way round.

by this logic labour would have some good policies

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

Anyone else think this is a particularly brave advertising campaign?

I think it is a particularly misguided example of 'bandwagon' politics (which we seem to thrive on in the UK).

Whilst they are correct in saying that it is not racist to impose immigration limits, for it not to be so, you need a good reason (of which there are many in almost all ideologies, including liberalism, although like most of the other liberal theories, it falls apart in the real world under scrutiny due to several major flaws.... such as it not actually being based in the real world). Generally though, accepted good reasons include detriment to existing culture/nation/state (though the extent of the detriment before it becomes reasonable is open for debate), which is the one used.

However, detriment is not the case. A more appropriate way of putting it is that it is detriment to the state by not letting them in. All statistical evidence shows that immigrants claim less benefits on a per-level-of-need basis than existing citizens, immigration leads to greater economic growth and that, without immigration, our generation (loosely being below middle-age) is up shit creek if we don't take more immigrants, as due to low fertility rates, we have an aging population, not to mention the UK's population is expected to decline. This means that the ratio of dependents to workers in this country is increasing rapidly, and as workers pay for the pensions of the older generations, without a serious influx of immigrants (something like 2.5 million over the next 10-15 years - my figure on this could be wrong, it's 2.5 years since I researched it), our economy will collapse under the pressure, and we'll have no pension. This is without mentioning other factors such as the need to fill certain manual/low-skilled jobs, and fill in other labour gaps.

Basically, the immigration policies of the UK are the biggest load of bollocks over here. Oh, and heres some historical perspective with some facts:
1. 1750-1900 --> Number of immigrants refused entry to the UK was 0 (hence our liberal reputation).
2. Passports only introduced around the time of World War 1, and that is when immigration control started being an issue.
3. Post WW1 immigration restrictions grew steadily up til now, with increases mainly due to national security to prevent German (and later Soviet) spies/agents from getting into the country.
Restricting it based on economic reasons is a VERY recent phenomenon (restricting it at all is a recent phenomenon).
4. Current immigration levels are far lower than they have been in the past. Immigration was bigger in Roman times than it is now both in relative terms and numerical terms. Throughout most of history (there are no occasions I know of where this was not the case) immigration has been greater than it is now.
5. Politicians talk bullshit, and say whatever they think will get them elected, even when their own families were immigrants.

[DaWoodster]

None of the political parties appear to be distinctive, they all seem to ride the current bandwagon regardless.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

by this logic labour would have some good policies

By that logic, so would the conservatives.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Bashar

It's not that conservative policies are indistinguishable, it's that Labour copies all the [edit]better[/edit] policies, so really, labour policies are indistinguishable from conservatives as opposed to the other way round.

Fixed.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by DaWoodster

None of the political parties appear to be distinctive,

Look closer.

[lokken]

i like the colour blue.

[Marilyn Manson]

I like the colour purple buy I'm not voting for ****ing UKIP.

[Bashar]

I think the best solution to the problem would be for ballot papers to have an 'Abstain' option. Not meainging a person puts a blank one in or anything like that, but one where that you can actually put a cross in the box, e.g:

[x] Abstain. I wish to vote that none of the options above have my approval for running the country.

I would vote if that option was there, and I reckon it would be the highest voter turnout for years, and I reckon that Abstain (whoever he/she is) would end up being the next prime-minister by a very large margin.

[Dante Hicks]

It's not brave in the slightest as the majority of people in the UK feel the same way (I would imagine). It's also the broad line of a good number of the newspapers.

The only place it would cost them votes would be among educated liberals. And who exactly amongst them was going to vote Tory anyway?

Both "sides" of the argument are incredibly stupid and dishonest. The Conservatives should try using the slogan from the past : "Vote Labour if you want a nig*er living next door to you." At least they'd be getting to the nub of their policy.

[Marilyn Manson]

Call me thick, but I don't see how that radically differs from the current arrangements. People can already register their disctontent by simply staying away. I don't really see why this has to be given an offical status tbh.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I would vote if that option was there, and I reckon it would be the highest voter turnout for years, and I reckon that Abstain (whoever he/she is) would end up being the next prime-minister by a very large margin.

I doubt it would improve turnout that much (barring some amazing campaign). I doubt I will bother voting in the next election (even if I'm registered) because I have a general disdain for the system, not just the candidates. By turning up to a polling booth to abstain / spoil a ballot paper you are arguably giving the whole process credence.

[Ste]

Hmm, maybe I should set up the RON party.

The Conservatives have lost the plot really, as Labour have moved right, the conservaitves seem to have decided that the only thing to do is move further right.
The Lib Dems are now left with the centre ground with a variety of minor parties on the left.

Lib dems seem to represent my views best out of the 'big three' but still not as much as I would like.
Labour are just using scare tactics which really annoys me "if you don't vote for us the conservatives will get in"

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Call me thick, but I don't see how that radically differs from the current arrangements. People can already register their disctontent by simply staying away. I don't really see why this has to be given an offical status tbh.

Politicians always make excuses about what happened:
"We didn't manage to give our views to enough people."
"Voter apathy is a sign of our declining social values, and now that we're in, we can work to fix this by blah blah blah"
etc.

At least this way, they would have something solid like '30% of voters felt the options were not worthy of running the country'. Somehow, I think that is a little harder for them to pass off as a sign of the times or any other excuses. Besides, you must admit you would love to see the party leaders trying to respond to that.

[Deffeh]

It may not be brilliant democracy, but i'm enjoying Michael Howard's conservatives look a less credible opposition every day.

[Summanus]

After the Tories lose by a record amount, Blair will rub it in with an official snooowflaaake greeting to Howard