The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I’m with them


by Sunny Hundal    
12:45 am - May 1st 2010

      Share on Tumblr

The paper posted this editorial online tonight:

Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the Liberal Democrats. It would be cast in the knowledge that not all the consequences are predictable, and that some in particular should be avoided. The vote would be cast with some important reservations and frustrations. Yet it would be cast for one great reason of principle above all.

After the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have waged over this past month, for which considerable personal credit goes to Nick Clegg, the election presents the British people with a huge opportunity: the reform of the electoral system itself. Though Labour has enjoyed a deathbed conversion to aspects of the cause of reform, it is the Liberal Democrats who have most consistently argued that cause in the round and who, after the exhaustion of the old politics, reflect and lead an overwhelming national mood for real change.

The rest is here.

After last night’s debate one thing really struck me. We on the left and many Labourites who are also on the left, fight against discrimination and marginalised people. This is why we attack the Tories for their homophobia and their flashes of racism.

But the way that both Labour and the Tories (the latter expected anyway) not only dismissed the idea of an amnesty, but actually dog-whistled throughout about how the Libdem plan would wreak havoc sickened me.

We have over 500,000 people in this country who are non-citizens; living in the shadows of society; living hand-to-mouth, on the breadline; open to exploitation because they have no legal status; earning less than minimum wage for shitty jobs because they can’t complain; and mostly no money even to leave the country.

If the Labour Party can’t even have compassion for them, then it cannot claim to be a party of compassion and for the marginalised. This government just wants to pretend they don’t exist, while knowing that the most vulnerable of them are exploited daily by gangs because they have no other choice. Is this what New Labour stands for? Is this what the Left stands for?

You may not have sympathy for these people. Fine. That’s your prerogative.

But the people who do claim to be in politics for the poor and the marginalised cannot claim that we should not have sympathy for these people. And it made me sick when all Brown could do was attack Clegg for even suggesting a very meek policy, rather than offering ideas of his own. This is a man with no ideas. He is not fit to lead the country (neither is Cameron of course, but I was always going to say that).

I am proud to see myself on the Left and I am proud of what the Left stands for. I just don’t believe this Labour government stands for the same values.

Update: My endorsement for the Libdems as a tactical move is further clarified here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Strategist

Agree with all this.

But, a hung parliament is going to need Labour to hold on in the Labour/Tory marginals Cameron needs to win to get an absolute majority.

So, in a large number of seats where the LibDems are in third place, the tactical vote for a hung parliament needs to be for Labour.

Which makes me puke given their 13 year track record of deceit and cynicism on electoral reform. But that what needs to happen, in my view.

2. Hibernica

Totally agree.

3. Hibernica

.. with the original post. Damn timing.

:-D

https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx

Simples.

(Also, if there’s a hung parliament and an election is called soon, you need to be a member for at least a year to have a vote in candidate selections (to stop entryism), so joining early makes sense the way the polls are looking.)

5. Strategist

To be clearer, you can merrily vote LibDem in many seats, but just not if you vote in this type of constiuency:

A Labour seat that can be lost by a swing to the Conservatives of more than 4% (see a list of just these seats)

• We should campaign to prevent the Conservatives winning as many of these seats as possible, or they will gain a working majority.

See http://www.progressiveparliament.org.uk/strategyguide.html for the list of what those constituencies are.

6. Strategist

You can agree with my post too if you like, Hibernica…

7. Shatterface

‘We have over 500,000 people in this country who are non-citizens; living in the shadows of society; living hand-to-mouth, on the breadline; open to exploitation because they have no legal status; earning less than minimum wage for shitty jobs because they can’t complain; and mostly no money even to leave the country.’

As far as Gordon Brown is concerned that’s half a million people who can’t actually vote, so why should he care? Clegg showed some genuine humanity though.

8. Hibernica

Nope, I’m good :)

Strategist, you list my seat (Calder Valley) as a “type 2″ seat; I’ve no idea what that means, but a) the Labour candidate is a party line following aparatchik who in my opinion is one of the worst major party candidates I’ve encountered in terms of competence and b) the Lib Dems are targetting and fighting it hard.

There was no way Labour would’ve held it on the retirement of the sitting MP, regardless of any other factor; with the collapse of Labour in local govt, the internecine infighting over candidate selection and the very strong LD candidate, in my opinion the best vote there to stop the Tories is a Lib Dem vote.

If I thought otherwise, I’d be on the campaign team in one of the many neighbouring seats.

What, exactly, does your site mean to suggest people should be doing there, and how does it take into account local factors, if any?

It’s not as simple as just looking at things as Lab/Tory marginals. My seat of Bristol North West is technically on paper from 2005 a Lab/Tory marginal but there is no way that it is anything other than a Lib/Tory marginal, or a three way marginal at worst, especially after the surge.

I do hope, however, that in constituencies where Lib Dems are clearly behind and not in a strong position they will work on keeping the seat out of Tory hands.

11. Strategist

MatGB @9 “Strategist, you list my seat (Calder Valley) as a “type 2? seat; I’ve no idea what that means, but a) the Labour candidate is a party line following aparatchik who in my opinion is one of the worst major party candidates I’ve encountered in terms of competence and b) the Lib Dems are targetting and fighting it hard… …What, exactly, does your site mean to suggest people should be doing there, and how does it take into account local factors, if any?”

First of all, please note Progressive Parliament is not my site and the credit for it goes to others, people I don’t know. I admire what they’re trying to do, though it’s not perfect – and not having snappier wording than “type 1″, “type 2″ seats etc is a mistake, in my view. However, the site is perfectly clear on what type of seat Calder Valley is:

“Seat type 2: A Labour seat that can be lost by a swing to the Conservatives of less than 4% (or a very narrow marginal Labour could gain)

• We can support the most progressive Labour candidates from this list, but we should also reject around 30 of the least progressive from the list, because we do not want a Labour victory either. This means we must select from within the list the most progressive candidates who we would like to see working in parliament and deciding the future direction of the party; and we must reject those whose beliefs and past records most conflict with our progressive values.”

My tactical voting advice for Calder Valley is as follows:

Sorry, buddy, it looks like you’re doomed to a Tory MP, tactical voting is useless, vote with your heart on this occasion, for whichever candidate. And join a campaign for electoral reform, so that your vote can start counting in future.

I hate tactical voting – that’s why I do it: to get rid of the electoral system that makes it necessary.

12. Strategist

Lee Griffin @10: “It’s not as simple as just looking at things as Lab/Tory marginals. My seat of Bristol North West is technically on paper from 2005 a Lab/Tory marginal but there is no way that it is anything other than a Lib/Tory marginal, or a three way marginal at worst, especially after the surge.”

That’s absolutely right, no it isn’t. And Progressive Parliament does recognise this – and so Bristol North West is listed as a “Type 3 seat”, defined as:

“A seat held by, or targeted by, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid, Greens (or progressive independents) (see
http://www.progressiveparliament.org.uk/type_3.html for a list of these seats)

• We should support the smaller party – or independent candidate – BUT we can make exceptions where there are any individual candidates whom we have good reason for rejecting because their beliefs or past records conflict with our progressive values.”

The LibDems can certainly come from third to take a seat in this election. And I notice that Electoral Calculus is forecasting precisely that in Bristol NW. So, Lee, vote LibDem with joy in your heart in Bristol NW, but spare a thought for the less fortunate living elsewhere who will never see their vote count in terms of electing someone.

Agreed, Sunny.

It’s funny, because I also agreed with what you said a few weeks ago about lefties needing to stick with Labour, to reform it and use it as a force of progress.

If Labour come 3rd in votes on Thursday, then I think they’re finished. TBH ever since Iraq, this was bound to happen sometime: the LDs replacing Labour as the main centre left party. Most non-racist people who voted Labour in the past could, with some persuasion, switch to the Lib Dems: there has been a massive gaping hole on the centre-left of British politics since Labour fell off the right-wing scale.

Someone has come forth to pull the sword out of the stone, and about bloody time too.

14. Chris Gilbert

I really don’t think you can predict the marginals properly this time – there’s too much change in voter intentions since 2005, the boundaries have changed in most areas, and all the stuff that has happened since – (credit crunch, recession, bank bailouts, MPs expenses) makes the swing predictions almost useless.

Just vote for who you want to. Tactical voting is rarely a good idea, because you never have enough information to do it properly. Unless you ask all of the voters what they are going to do, then you don’t really know.

What if you wanted Lib Dems but choose tactically to vote for Labour, and Lib Dems would have won if you hadn’t? I think promoting tactical voting is anti-democratic, and in this election, irresponsible, because the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning any seat, much more than they would usually. Discouraging tactical voting could be just as useful keeping the tories out this time round. In fact – judging by the polls – tactical voting really ought to be going to the Lib Dems!

15. Strategist

@14 I would love that you were right, Chris, but decades of psephology proves you wrong. And a lot of your post is a muddle.

“I think promoting tactical voting is anti-democratic, and in this election, irresponsible, because the Lib Dems have a fair chance of winning any seat, much more than they would usually.”

I’m not a LibDem supporter, but I’ll be casting my vote for the LibDems where I live, because I live in a Labour-LibDem marginal and I want electoral reform. That’s a tactical vote.

But the fact is there remain many seats – far fewer than there used to be, and not many in the go-ahead metropolises, but still many seats in large swathes of middle England – where it’s a Labour-Tory two way fight and the LibDems in a poor third.

All I’m saying is that if the Tories pick up very large numbers of those seats, they will win an absolute majority, and hopes for electoral reform (hopes held by many of us not LibDems) are dashed. So hold your nose and a tactical vote for Labour is what is best in those particular seats. This is the list: http://www.progressiveparliament.org.uk/type_1.html

Anyone in Brighton Pavilion should vote Green!

17. Nick Cohen is a Tory

I do hope that lib dems have a say in this election because it will the dawn of new age of universal suffrage. Real choice.
The 2 main poiltical parties are a mixture of many different political ideas whose main purpose is to stop the other b*******ds getting in.
Personally I want to vote for a Cruddas led Labour party and a return to core values of the Labour party but this will never be possible with the current system.
Libertarian Tories like Watchman should also want a split from the authoritarian social conservatives.
Unfortunately this will not occur because the Tories will get in with a small majority and keep FPTP.
Also forget the spin, Cameron is more Thatcher than Thatcher.

Why do the Compassites lionise Cruddas? His voting record since 2001:

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change.
Voted moderately for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.

Why should LibDems consider tactically voting Lab when surely their aim should be to get to second place in terms of vote numbers?

20. Nick Cohen is a Tory

cjcjc
Why should you be concerned about how leftists vote?

Agree every word Sunny, though I still won’t be voting for them.

Well, if Nick and his boys get in, Parliament will be a whole lot whiter than white… in every conceivable sense.

I felt GB played a blinder on Thursday, that he was more able to articulate the plans to pick up the economy and not it slide into a grey hole as would the Tories with their ideological cuts to services. GB’s position seemed far more considered, Cameron was a little to immature on the subject, way out his depth, and Clegg – not his usual self – appealed to niceties and low, hypocritical anti-politics stereotypes – that will eventually come to shoot him in the foot in event of a hung parliament, and we’d all do well to remember.

In spite of this, the leader debates were a game of politics, swiping statements,base argument, and GB did his best to stop it from being a case of who can be the rudest to who. Further, as they were the most popular political events on the calendar before the election, they seemed to give the illusion that it was an individual, and not a party, that we are going to vote for. And this was bad for the less informed voter, but those of us more informed about these things would do better than to decide who to vote for on these debates – for me they did little to clarify what the parties stood for and how one man could undercut the man to his left or right. Surely vote for the party, not the individual – for this is not a road mature British politics should go down, we’ll leave that to the x-factor politics of the US.

We’ve all seen shifts in direction for the labour party, but whether we like that or not they did well not to follow the line in Europe and keep the economy afloat as best as possible with easing measures and capital injections. On a wider note for the economy, something that is a small expense, but could potentially be a great benefit to young people growing up during economic austerity is the child trust fund, which the lib dems plan to scrap in favour of smaller classrooms.

As for migration, labour surely has to change the tune its whistling, but we are not a party of xenophobes. I personally don’t feel amnesties promote illegal immigration, they are a solution to the wicked issue of illegal immigrants lurking among the shadows, but I don’t see it at all as in conflict with the party’s moral compass, nor my own, which is why I think these things might better be campaigned for within the party of fairness. That is why if the labour party should get your vote, unlike what Sunny or the guardian is saying, because they are the party of fairness, they are the party that is committed to saving the economy for the majority and not on account of an ideology, and because to vote lib dems is to implicitly say to the right wing of the labour party you win! I for one am not prepared to do that

24. Chris Baldwin

The Lib Dems? The Lib Dems???!!! I can’t believe The Guardian would endorse a nineteenth century third party at such a crucial election. Wake up people, it’s Labour or the Tories and if you’re on the left there’s no choice. No choice at all.

25. Chris Gilbert

Gah Chris, please stop that nonsense :) The Lib Dems are ahead of the Labour party in most polls. If anyone is out of the race, it’s the Labour party! Stop propagating untruth. The main trouble is, most people don’t like Gordon Brown, and they resent how he came into power. When I say ‘most’ I mean the non-political types who don’t spend hours staring at polls like us. Take that into account when putting in voting intentions. Bear in mind that a lot has happened since 2005 – the vote share this time around is going to look a LOT different to elections we’ve seen in the past. The choice is whether you back the Liberals ahead of Labour in the polls, choose to vote Tory, or cling to a sinking ship, known as the Labour party.

Harpymarx’s site is malfunctioning, otherwise I would have said this there…

It’s absolute nonsense for anyone claiming they won’t vote Lib Dem because “they’ll just ditch their progressive policies”. Aside from historical evidence that they vote progressively while the other parties do not, it completely misunderstands the party’s democratic structure. Perhaps this is to be expected after you’ve supported a party that pays so little attention to the wishes of it’s members for so long, but it can’t be an excuse to ignore that the Lib Dem’s can’t just easily drop it’s agenda as New Labour did.

Chris Gilbert, I think he was joking.

Also Sunny H, the Guardian article made two key points, and you’ve disregarded one of them, which is that people in Lab-Con marginals should vote Labour, as Strategist and others have said in these comments.

28. Chris Gilbert

Joking? It’s hard to tell who’s a Labour stalwart and who’s not these days! :)

And voting tactically – the trouble is, most people will just make a hash of this. All it does it propagate untrue predictions about who is going to win.

If you think that way, and so do 5% of other potential Lib Dem supporters, then you can lose them a seat.

It’s in the “best” of intentions, but it rarely works properly. It’s not something that should be condoned, and my personal opinion is that it makes a mockery of democracy. If you believe in democracy, then you shouldn’t encourage it.

It’s illegal to pay people to vote for a party, and telling people to vote for a different party than they would have done, by using scare tactics should be unacceptable in a modern democracy.

I direct to a YouGov poll – 49% of people would vote Lib Dem, if they thought they could win:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/liberal-democrats-popular-all-round

And the classic John Cleese video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU&feature=PlayList&p=E55CD5AAA2289A88&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=68

So, all in all, promoting tactical voting just denies us the democratic change we deserve. If more people were going to vote Tory anyway – then so be it. I believe in democracy, and subverting it doesn’t do anyone any good. If everyone voted ignoring whether people “could win” or not, then those people probably would win.

It’s sort of like supporting Manchester United because they win a lot. Fair enough, but voting with the winner gets you nothing. You have sacrificied your personal beliefs, and made very little difference. Unlike with Man U, there is no good football to watch either, just the same Labour policies, and the same ideas, year after year.

Voting who you want to vote for regardless, fills you with warm nice feelings, and whatever the outcome, you feel you have made clear your own point of view. You should try it sometime :)

We Lib Dems have been doing it a few years. If we hadn’t, there would be no Liberal Democrat party at all.

which is that people in Lab-Con marginals should vote Labour

Whoa – I’ve not asked anyone to vote in any direction. I’m just articulating my own thoughts. Of course – I’d never endorse the Tories and neither am I saying everyone should vote Libdems in all circumstances.

Vote depending on local situation. My local Labour MP is awful.

Well there’s a surprise.

Should we now call you “Nipper”?

Oh well, fair enough. It is the job of political parties to convince people to support them, and no sense in denouncing people if they don’t like what they are seeing on the telly.

I’d just echo the plea to find out about your local candidate and what they think. It is easy enough with the t’internet to find out about your local candidates – voting for the hard-working leftie-liberal Labour candidate who is standing in a safe Tory seat is not a way of showing support for Gordon Brown’s immigration policy, but is a way of rewarding good behaviour.

32. Chris Gilbert

Yeah, which is another good reason I don’t want to vote Labour! Julia Bateman the Lib Dem winning our seat in Gedling is a long shot (100/1 and I have a tenner on it!), but I can’t stand Vernon Coaker’s voting record.

He’s ok at local issues, but he is a such a wimp in parliament, and has none of his own ideas or opinions. He voted strongly for reduction of civil liberties, ID cards, anti-terror legislation, and the Iraq war. All of which I detest. So even though I hate Tories – if it comes down to that voting record, what am I actually losing by having a Tory get in? To be honest, I think they’d be stronger on some of those points! So, I will be voting where my heart is, instead of doing the desperate, and trying to keep a crappy politician in office.

If you want to know your MPs voting record, you can look here. I’d suggest doing that before voting tactically to keep them in office. Make sure you know what you are retaining:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Carl: but I don’t see it at all as in conflict with the party’s moral compass, nor my own, which is why I think these things might better be campaigned for within the party of fairness

On the Amnesty issue – I don’t see any Labour campaign to offer Amnesty at all. I saw Peter Mandelson later that night completely twisting around what LD policy was and scare-monger in the worst way.

I know that lots of Labour people are with me on this. But I’m afraid the PLP has simply become a machine dedicated only to holding on to power rather than speaking truth to power.

Once these shower of idiots go, then I’d gladly work to support more progressive left candidates. In fact, I went leafleting for one just today :)

34. Bored in Kavanagsau

We have over 500,000 people in this country who are non-citizens; living in the shadows of society; living hand-to-mouth, on the breadline; open to exploitation because they have no legal status; earning less than minimum wage for shitty jobs because they can’t complain; and mostly no money even to leave the country.

Why should illegal immigrants get in ahead of those who follow the rules? Many of the illegal immigrants come from families who can barely afford the cost of getting their child into the U.K, handing over their life savings to middle-men. However, those from India are likely in the upper quartile of wealthiest people there: Indian illegal immigrants come from wealthier areas such as the Punjab and not Uttar Pradesh or even those areas with responsible population controls such as Kerala. Do we really need more Punjabis adding their dependents into the mix in areas such as Hounslow/Southall, a further reward for communities thriving from the tolerance of plural monoculturalim. Why should continued non-E.U immigration be dominated by the pattern of migration which occured in 60s and 70s? Why should a potential Botswanan immigrant be pushed back in the cue? I have lived on and off in Hounslow for thirty years and ask where are all these Indians (1st generation, mostly male, 20-40 year olds) flocking from? These areas need integration not further segregation supported by a laissez-faire to the illegal immigration industry. There have been arrests in Hounslow in local supermarkets and warehouses of illegal immigrants working there and fines imposed. Are you so sure these shitty jobs (not everyone can work in I.T, journalism or the diversity industry) would not be taken by British workers? By the way, where is the compassion for unemployed 18-24 year olds such as Vicky Harrison, her story contradicting the perception you get in the media when the positive case for the role of illegals is made: indolent Brits content on the dole thinking the jobs illegals take are beneath them. London wouldn’t fall apart if illegals upped sticks and left; British or Eastern Europeans would be there to take their jobs legally from the people who took their jobs illegally. Why are the Lib Dems fighting harder for illegals, those in the upper quartile in terms of wealth in their own countries, rather than unemployed youth, near the bottom here, trying to find a place in Britain? It would be like an Indian “progressive” party favouring illegal British immigrants from Surrey over raising the living standards for its poorest citizens!

If caught, illegal immigrants should be shown compassion by giving them the plane fare home if they can’t afford it and amnesty from prison terms. Labour have started to clamp down on immigration colleges and imposed fines on companies which employ illegals: stronger regulation is needed not the prospect of an amnesty which will be advertised by modern-day arakatis (middle-men who source indentured labour from India to Fiji). If costs become prohibitive, then charge the countries where illegal immigrants come from for their evictions, either financially or limiting the number of spousal and legal work visas available from those same countries.

35. Matthew Stiles

If the Lib dems were really to the left of the labour party then why are they appealing to the Tory voters to vote tactically for them? Here in Hornsey and Wood Green, every leaflet blares out “Tories can’t win here”. What about local government in Birmingham, Leeds, Ipswich etc where the Liberals are in bed with the Tories and imposing cuts in services and pay?
I’m no fan of New Labour but the answer is to get in there and fight for a more left-wing party.

Suuny ..and youve just woken up to the reality of Nulabour today??After 13 years of them?? Opportunist or what !!

37. journeyman

@Bored in Kavanagsau

Thanks for injecting an alternative view point into the debate.
I patiently await the replies to your comment from the pro amnesty supporters here.

@Sunny Hundal

Over 500,000 illegal immigrants. ?
I suspect that in previous debates on immigration in general on L.C., that the figure 500,000 would have been disputed as a right-wing (Sally-Brown-Shirt) overestimation and distortion of statistics.
I would not wish to disappoint so I would suggest that even 500,000 could be an underestimation. There seems to be no way to arrive at a definite number.
It could be considerably higher.

Questions

1) Would an amnesty encourage or discourage more illegal immigration. ?
If not –why not ?

2) if it encouraged it—would you be joyful or opposed to more illegal immigration .
If not why not ?

3) If it does encourage more illegal immigration, should that be followed by another amnesty. ?
If so why ?

4) Could there be a point of critical mass where the original aim of this “niceness” or “altruism” of amnesty for illegal immigrants could only be achieved by impounding and transfering the not infinite resouces of “niceness” and “altruism ” allocated to other members of society and handed to the illegal immigrants….thereby just exchanging one evil for another.? Or robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If not..why not ?

5) If so….could it be possible that there is an either/or morally or criminally negligent element in supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants because we have failed in estimating the negative consequences it could have on society in general.?

6) Am I pissing in the wind in even attempting to debate this issue here because I am debating with an L.C. type Leftist ideology which has an open borders, non-indigenous, mongrel race, just another geographical plot of land with no more significance than any other whatsoever—– commitment as a major corner-stone of its belief system.?

Or to put it in other words—-if before the discussion has even begun—if that is your starting postion—-the argument will take on that familiar circular nature which will take us back to the place we started from—that being the basic governing first principals that L.C. leftists must never betray and uphold with a ferocity which relegates all other considerations “AUTOMATICALLY” to a lower priority. (i.e. The well being of the host society)

Regards
journeyman

I’m not interested in engaging with anti-Amnesty trolls. The point was made about having sympathy for the very marginalised in society – effectively the people we want to shove under the carpet and forget they even exist. Being against that sort of discrimination is what the Left is about.

Well, one of them. It’s one of the reasons why I always say I’m on ‘the left’ of the Lib Dems, even though some who think they’re there think I’m a dangerous thatcherite because I’ve read a book on economics.

But yeah, pretty much, if your principle objection is a variant on “Britain is better and we were here first” then, well, fuck off.

Speaking as a Devonshire lad of ancient dumnonian descent, I’d like to thank all the incomers from the last 2000+ years, as without them my genepool would be fucking awful.

I love the way the journeyman toll comes on Sunny’s site and starts demanding answers to his idiot questions. That is immigration for you, you start a site and all the waters invite themselves in. (snark)

His last paragraph is meaningless drivel.

Always amuses me that the anti immigration, British is best , keep out brigade are the same defenders of the British Empire and the invasion of other countries. These are the same hypocrites who read the Daily Torgrapgh editorial attacking immigration and then turn to the papers foreign property section to see where they intend to spend their retirement.

42. Chris Gilbert

@journeyman

You use interesting and verbose language here, but I will try to keep up :)

You’re right, there’s no way of knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants there are in the country. I can’t remember where Nick Clegg got the estimate from, but it was the upper end of a report by an anti-immigrant sort of survey. I think he quoted 600,000 actually. Lets assume that that is about right..

600,000 people are in the country illegally because they didn’t leave when they were supposed to. Presumably, since they have no national insurance numbers, they cannot be either a) Working legally and paying taxes, or b) Claiming benefits. Would you agree with that?

If those are the case, then they must be surviving somehow – so the assumption would be that they are working illegally.

In terms of employing illegal immigrants there are some advantages to a company –

1) They are dirt cheap, because you can pay them less than minimum wage.
2) They don’t pay any taxes, so they don’t complain as much at their rubbish wages as they would otherwise.
3) There’s no need to worry about health and safety concerns, paye or all that red tape – you can just give them cash in hand and they won’t complain about ‘their rights’.

So actually, there are some advantages to certain aspects of the economy in illegal workers. Which presumably is why we have so many, and why they stayed. If companies/criminal gangs, or whoever is employing them (I suspect a mix of both) then they are mostly responsible for the immigrants being able to stay. If no one would give them work illegally, then they would have to leave. So, there are almost certainly British people who are propagating this problem, by flaunting the law. Perhaps they should be prosecuted more.

So, let us look at the best way to deal with this.

We could:

a) Try to find the companies and gangs illegally employing people. The question is, how? They obviously aren’t going to tell us.

Should we rely on the public to tip of the authorities on people who may be illegal immigrants?

That may have some serious unintended consequences – stirring up racial hatred is definitely not a great thing for the government to do, when it is already fragile, so creating an army of vigilantes perhaps isn’t the best idea. Stand behind a muslim man at an airport. and tell me that he isn’t being treated unfairly because some blokes who happened to be muslims decided to blow a few people up. Asserting racial and religious difference, and making laws using it, is always a bad idea, and usually has these ‘unintended consequences’ you speak of too.

b) Admit that they are useful to the economy, and our society, and so ask them to voluntarily register themselves, giving details of their address and so on, proving how long they have been here (pretty easy – utility bills), and asking for permission to work. I don’t think anyone would claim this was a guaranteed process – if they had a criminal record, or couldn’t speak English, then they would fail to gain employment permission, and could then be deported.

Also bear in mind, at the moment illegal immigrants compete with low paid British workers on a non-level playing field. Legal workers pay taxes, and are paid minimum wage. Illegal workers don’t, and aren’t.

There’s definitely more than a few dodgy people employing people because they are cheaper. These are British people, employing the immigrants for cheap labour. Perhaps they could do with having some lessons in ‘good British morality’ from someone, since they are obviously lacking in it.

Ok, your questions:

1) Would an amnesty encourage more immigrants? By itself, with no other measures – maybe. But coupled with better border controls, and tighter enforcement of employment laws, it would make no difference. People stay illegally because it’s easy to. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t (or would do a lot less). Most people just fly in, enter legally as a tourist, then don’t leave. At the moment we have no way of knowing whether they left, because the tories got rid of the ‘wasteful’ border controls.

2) I wouldn’t be joyful about illegal immigration, but I don’t think *legal* immigration into areas which we need workers is a bad thing. We have needed more nurses in the past, and there are lots of well qualified eastern Europeans working in the IT industry. Three quarters of my team speak Russian, and are very good at their jobs. So what? They are just people, like anyone else. I like some immigrants, and not others, just like I like some British people and not others. I have no particular desire for a British person whom I may, or may not like, to get a job over a foreign person. Why should I? The assumption that I would care, just because they are British, seems a little unfair. I prefer to take people as individuals, not races.

3) Well, if we did have another amnesty, I suspect it would be 10 years later. If all these *millions* of illegal immigrants flooded in, they wouldn’t qualify until they had 10 years of utility bills, would they? It’s hardly something you can aspire to. Why do you think everyone wants to live in this country? There are lots of places in the world to go. Personally, I’d prefer to illegally sneak into somewhere with better weather.

4) There is some finite amount of niceness and altruism? Is there? How would one quantify it – and how would one choose to allocate it? In any case, this isn’t altruism, because we gain the selfish advantages of taking considerably more money into the treasury through tax and national insurance. It is, rather, a pragmatic economic decision.

5) “…because we have failed in estimating the negative consequences it could have on society in general.” I’m not sure exactly what you men by this. What would the negative consequences be, other than pissing off people who don’t like immigrants anyway? Lets bear in mind, these people are already here living in our society. They are already causing these “negative social consequences” if they exist. Making them pay tax doesn’t seem like it will create many additional ones.

6) I think the ideologues here are the people who dislike immigration regardless of the postive/negative consequences. This is rather, a pragmatic solution to an actual problem, rather than a useless, rhetorical argument that has no actual action behind it. You used the term “mongrel race”, which to be honest, makes you look like a eugenics ideologue. I hope that wasn’t what you actually intended. We are after all, a mongrel race of Anglo Saxons, Nords, French and all of the other places who invaded us over the years. Pretending that there’s some true blood British ancestry is a bit loony to be honest.

What are these other things which you think should be considered more important than the well being of our society? Is it the prevalence of white skin in our country, the superior ‘british’ race (whatever that means)? Why are you convinced immigration is damaging (illegal or otherwise)?

Do you know any immigrants? Do you know anywhere where there are ‘too many’ of them?

I often find a lot of this is just rhetoric, rather than an actual real problem, so specific areas help, and specific issues, rather than the general ‘immigration is a problem’ line which people seem to constantly say without backing it up with anything. All the research done actually suggest that the people most afraid of immigration, are those in areas with the least immigration! When you think about it, it makes sense.

If anyone’s the ideologue, Journeyman, I suspect it’s you. The LSE has estimated there are about 725,000 irregular inhabitants in the UK (as at March 2009). Deporting them, they reckoned, would take 34 years (and cost £8bn). That, of course, was a year ago, and those estimates will be higher now. We’ll never get to the end of that notional 34 years until the problem solves itself and people stop coming. (The figure Clegg mentioned in the first debate was 900,000 people).

What do you propose to do about these people, if not seek to regularise the law-abiding, English-speaking contingent? Such a measure would, of course, free up resources to tighten border controls, as well as undercutting the criminal enterprises that depend on irregulars and increasing tax revenue. These people aren’t going to go away if we don’t do this. The ones who have been here for ten years will have livings (of some sort), even families, certainly decent spoken English.

It’s largely because of these practical considerations that there is already a scheme for regularising illegals after 14 years (or at least granting them indefinite leave to remain). Boris intends to implement a scheme to regularise after (I think) 5 years. This idea is mainstream. Except, of course, the Lib Dem plan proposes a cut-off date for arrival, whereas the existing scheme regularises people on a rolling basis, so far as I know.

“non-indigenous, mongrel race, just another geographical plot of land with no more significance than any other whatsoever”

I’m afraid this doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as a nation whose people aren’t “mongrel”. And, I’m afraid, while you can allot any meaning to a geographical location that you wish, just as I can, you cannot impose your meaning on others. So it doesn’t make sense to imply that your particular meaning has some innate primacy. Its primary begins and ends with you. All the meaning we allot to geographical locations is within our own consciousnesses.

@37 journeyman

Anyone using the term “mongrel race” instantly forfeits any pretence of being interested in democratic debate.

If Sunny hasn’t already banned you, he should do so without delay.

45. journeyman

@Galen

Quote: ” Anyone using the term “mongrel race ” instantly forfiets any pretence of being interested in democratic debate.
If Sunny hasn’t banned already banned you, he should do so without delay.

Galen my Orwellian -Kafkaesque nightmare friend—-I was quoting a well known Leftist term which is repeatedly verbalized by the Left to support their ideology on both legal and illegal immigration.—-when I wrote —” mongrel race “.
Is the entire adolescent campus left in Britain goinbg to be banned by Sunny Hundal for using the same expression that even he must have used once in his life.
Or could it be that the Left may use this expression that they all but practically invented to support their “raison d’etre” .
taking the hypocrisy in your rant into account –I would say you owed me a reply.

46. journeyman

@Galen

Oh, and Í forgot.

“If Sunny hasn’t banned you he should do so without delay”.

That would be out of character and as I suspect he knows–unjustified.

Sunny,

late reply sorry, but I’m glad to hear of your labour leafletting. Myself, I fear the lib dem shift – or how evan harris notes that the lib dem vote is for lib dems now – is a vindication of the labour shift from social democracy to neoliberalism. Like the robbing thieving buddhist shopkeeper once said ought to come from within

D’oh – CHANGE ought to come from within!

49. journeyman

@Chris Gilbert

I appreciate that you have spent effort in formulating a comprehensive reply to my comments. I cannot propose any micro-managerial solutions in how best to manage third world mass immigration based on there being an amnesty as its given starting point.
Or that I should suggest finding solutions to the challenges(crisis) of third world immigration in general.
The reason being that if you habitually hit your thumb with a hammer while building a house—I would suggest you avoid hitting your thumb , and not how to treat the wound.
I dispute the very reasoning which has been employed by the left who insist that any chance of an eventual future catatstrophic demographic “blow-back” from mass third world immigration is either highly unlikely, is a concern not supported by historical evidence, if it did appear that it would only be a justifiable reaction to racist /xenophobic provocation eminating from some far right wing source and that western society is so omnipotent that it could not only survive unscathed and undimished but remain resilient enough to wash, rinse , repeat as required —-whenever neccessary -whenever the shit hits the minaret.
What odds are you giving on this little fritter at the race track. .
And does Sunny Hundal have a little plack on his desk which proclaims—
” The Buck Stops Here”
Are there any plans to pay some form of compensation if you are proven wrong.

I fell over a comment by a person who claims that ten years ago he employed men for painting and decorating work for £ 120 a day, where now he can pay £45 a day.
If true and more the rule rather than the exception, it gives us something to think about.

As the term indigenous population appears to be nothing more than some anarchronistic outmoded abstract concept based on nothing more than another anachronistic outmoded abstract fantasy—”national identity” which is in itself is nothing more than a form of racism or xenophobia— we could presume that that even the term “immigrant” must be on the verge of becoming abstract and meaningless.
Confusing isn’t it ?
i.e . the “out of Africa ” meme refered to by the Left ( I was only quoting the left )
Word has it that even immigrants have expressed concern about immigration–which
could mean that the term “indigenous British could be replaced without offending anyone with civic British. This would still enable us to imagine that there can still remain some form of Britain as a nation state with borders and citizens indigenous or not, who might agree on matters concerning immigration. Although I doubt that most immigrants would vote down one amnesty proposal after the other, and as the immigrant population increases , immigration policy could become a bit of an irreversible runaway train by way of immigrant democratic swing vote power in one election after the other.
I expect a mulitude of unintended consequences which we will only become blantantly obvious until the future provides us with the miserable benefit of hindsight.
Both I and many others can visualize the form this runaway snowball will take intuitively rather than intellectually, in much the same way that a reasonable chess player doesn’t have to think about every move and can eliminate some as being folly without even thinking about them.

Another thing. I had no idea that the use of the Leftist cliche ” mongrel race ” was going to stir up such a hornets nest of misunderstanding. (once again I was only quoting the Leftist useage of it)
By the way–when the Left resort to these terms in a debate to support a position—is it forbidden to quote them to dispute their reasoning.?
I try to avoid using the term myself because I am disgusted by the inverse “racist”? implications in it.

Quote: ” Is it the prevalence of white British skin in our country, the superior “British ” race whatever that means” . Why are you convinced that immigration is damaging (illegal or otherwise).

I have not said a word about “white British skin ” or “superior British race” .
It is exactly this which the Leftist mind-set fails to understand. Imagine that you are a member of an East African tribe that is objecting to immigration into its territory.
Does this objection have to be because they are obsessed with the superiority of Black skin or the superiority of the “Watusi ” race.
I doubt it. But that which you know as “xenophobia ” well yes, of course.
But I call it ” Natural Law “.
“Natural Law does not go down well in places like this because it contradicts scientific socialist law.
Scientific socialism can tie itself up in knots of hypocrisy when it applies to us and not the ” Noble Savage” in some exotic rain forest setting or jungle, Tibet or even the Gaza strip.
It becomes full of contradictory inconsistencies. It is selective in its outrage when deciding which tribes an cultures to protect from intrusion or colonization and when immigration is colonisation or not.
You may be aware of this.
The more I come to think about it, the more I would insist that it is not geographical, racial, historical , ancestoral , traditional , tribal national identity and its folk memory which is a primitive, abstract , construct of the intellect which invites conflict and has been the source of all the worlds ills.
But its deadly enemy –scientific socialism.
I would suggest that scientific socialism is an artificial abstract construct.
If “Natural Law ” is the nearest manifestation that a spiritual Atheist such as myself could imagine is “God” —then scientific socialism is the equivalent of standing on a golf course in a lightning storm while holding up a lightning conductor.
I think the correct expression is– ” just asking for it” or like
poking a Rottweiler with a stick too much until it will gets tired of it and has your leg off.

Scientific socialism is the bored meddling narcissistic, imature, adolescent demogogue who throws a tantrum because Mankind is formed from crooked timber and it constantly refuses to deform itself into the perfect mold he has imagined for it.
It is begging for a rendevouz with hard wired human nature—with fate. It is jeering at it.
It is KIng Canute ordering the tide to obey him.
The only way in which scientific socialism can selectively discriminate against certain soceties only and keep certain manifestations of “natural law” in check is to oppress, punish, intimidate, indoctrinate, stigmatize and demonize these tribal reflexes in the same manner that 12th century Christianity employed these tools to suppress dissent or the Soviet Union employed to punish deviationism from party doctrine.
One thing it is utterly incapable of doing is going with the flow or even realizing that there is a flow there. That would be much to boring and control freaks with first names like Karl or Frankfurt who want to play God while infatuated with their own intellectual reflection wouldn’t have anything to do.

There is a question I have asked from Lefties many times and I have recieved no answer.
The question was—that during the occupation by the Soviet forces of Eastern European nations—-does the Left consider this to have been a beneficial and morally justifiable occupation—-and when the Soviet Union collapsed—-and the Poles wanted to be Poles and the Slovaks wanted to be Slovaks but not Czekoslovakians—was that in some way a detestible display of primitive nationalistic tribal sentiment ? Did anyone object to this rush for national independance on the mongrel race premises.
They just couldn’t wait to re-establish there tribal indentity.

Sometimes the goal posts which the Left uses to validate its reasoning gets suddenly shifted by demanding to know what use all this theoretical argument can be put in dealing with the practical every day aspects of this problem, just have you have done here……..

Quote: “I often find a lot of this just rhetoric , rather than just an actual real problem”
so specific areas help and specific issues” rather than the general “immigration is a problem” line which people seem to constantly say without backing it up with anything”

You see, this is the circular argument–the Catch 22—the Kafkaesque justice.
Thats unfair because it jumps over and by passes the very inadequatley unchallenged, unexplored supporting arguments and reasoning which the cultural marxist Left itself has employed which has resulted in massive immigration (legal and illegal ) over the last 4 decades in the first place.
Corporate greed and political voter block gerrymandering political parties had no such altruistic motives but it was grateful for the ideological back-up, and coincidental common agenda—even if they don’t pursue the same end game or care in the slightest about the fall-out

There is no need to worry because the Left will immidialtely selectively employ those simplistic,— (out of Africa , mongrel race, the whole world are mongrels except for. the Noble savage)– crass simplicities whenever it suits them. Although I doubt that I will be in this world when the accumalated effects of third world immigration come home to roost,
For the sake of future generations I feel compelled to do what I do because i imagine
they would forever curse this generation for dumping a balkanized dystopia in their lap as we wave fairwell while riding of into the sunset.
Those who came before us were not afflicted by such self -destructive hedonistic intoxication. Instinct , gut feeling and commonsense–that radar sweep which warns society of dangers that lay ahead which obstruct its path were not deactivated.or disarmed. . I remain forever in there debt. The likes of that temporary relatively peaceful and affluent period of European history was more of an exception than a rule.
It was a fluke. We take it much to much for granted.
It may take a bit of an event to wake many from their comotose smugness like a bucket of cold water, to the point where they will just have to accept that in debates on Islam and immigration the happy days are finally over and anyone expressing non left opinons on the subject will have to treated with “alternative view ” status.
Although in any such scenerio I expect the Left will on reflex and with its protective instinct of minorities—- trivialize , diminish and explain away anything short of Ragnarok,
I don’t want to play Russian Roulette ( Hope and Optimism in Newspeak ) with demographics as the gun , Islam as the bullet, and with Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx or the LIbDem Simon Hughes pulling the trigger, some where 20 or 30 years years down the road from here, to find out if there’s a bullet in the chamber.
I am not going to gamble with someone another persons future.
I don’t believe its a question of “if ” but a question of ” when” the crap is going to start flying . There is a simple reason for this. We have for the last several decades been dedicated to creating a cocktail of the correct ingredients and an enviroment which will be a fertile enviromet for civil conflict and balkanisation.

I don’t want to play Russian Roulette with the ultimate stakes which are at play if we lose the gamble. Besides…I wouldn’t be playing with my own chips anyway( and you don’t own them either). The true owners of those Roulette chips are either very young or not born yet.

I believe there is such a thing as the “extended family ” for all societies both ancestoral in time and cultural in space and I believe that this concept transcends politics and is somewhat spiritual in its perception. It can take a thousand years to cement those bonds together and a few decades to undermine the few things which sustain it and irreversibley dilute and then destroy it as we scatter it to the four winds blowing.

“In real life we do not choose between good and bad, but between two evils”
George Orwell

I feel that I’ve gone on much to long here and feel almost foolish about it because I knew beforehand that the difference in our ideologies and perceptions is to big to bridge.
It is clear that the only thing we can agree on is that we “beg to differ”. Or even worse.
Delete me, ignore or fire away with your replies at your leisure.
I shall only reply if specifically requested
I shall make a point of reading them to ensure that you also have your say and then let matters rest there.
Although just so you know I,ve read your reply, I could nip in to score each from one to ten in eloquence of contemptuous animosity , with the winner being awarded with a signed first edition copy of Gibbons –Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Regards
journeyman

50. Nick Cohen is a Tory

I see that the Observer is supporting the lib dems apart from nasty Nick who has written the most two faced column. In which he slags off cable,clegg and Labour. Then suggesting labour is slightly better than respect or the BNP.
The real subtext was that labour is corrupt and the lib dems inexperienced, only the tories can lead the country.
The man is complete spineless twat.
As for the Guardian / Observer’s conversion, it was more anti Brown than pro Clegg.
Journey manA
I take your mongrel comment as a compliment.
The British are a mongrel race.
Mongrels have taken from a large gene pool unlike the in bred pure breeds. They are more intelligent, healthier (less prone to genetic diseases), and usually they
have a more rounded personality

51. John Russell

Sunny. What I dont understand is why when Nick Clegg is challenged on the miscalled Lib Dem”Amnesty” he does not ask what current policy is for people here for over 10 years. Is the Lib Dem proposal really much of a change? If its not, what have other parties said about changing current policy?
Clarification.

@ journeyman 45 & 46

I refer you to Chris Gilbert’s sentiment @ 42: “You used the term “mongrel race”, which to be honest, makes you look like a eugenics ideologue. I hope that wasn’t what you actually intended.”

Your long, meandering, train of thought posts don’t make it at all clear that the offending phrase in your first post was you quoting something.

What Sunny does is upto him of course – his site, his rules.

If you aren’t a eugenics ideologue as many would suspect from your OP, say so. Frankly your posts are as muddled as they are long. If you didn’t deliberately use the “mongrel race” phrase just to be provocative…. it’s hard to discern the purpose from the rest of the (way the hell too long) post.

46 The troll does like the sound of his own voice. And as usual with people like that it is meaningless drival.

But what comes across his how afraid he is. He must be scared of his own shadow the poor little thing. He sees danger everywhere.

54. journeyman

@Galen

Quote: ” If you aren’t a eugenics ideologue as many would suspect from your OP,say so.”

Ok. No I’m not a eugenics ideologue. I know bugger all about the subject. I think it has something to do with the Nazis and breeding a race of Aryan supermen or something.
I have good days and bad days when posting comments and even I have to admit looking back at them that on this occasion my posts have been much to ragged and rambling. This was a bad day. I was tired.
I will endevour to dispell this eugenics lark suspicion thing once and for all.

At point 6) in my post at 8.14 pm ….I portrayed some of those elements that I have observed that (some ) of the Left use in their argument to justify immigration .

1) A distaste for borders (one big borderless world )

2) The claim that there have never been a peoples indigenous to Britain.

3) The Left claims that the British are a ” mongrel race” as part of its argument in support of immigration.( As in mongrel dog i suspect)

4) And in debates on immigration , you’d reckon that the Left have so much contempt and distain at the mention of national identity that Britain for them is just another geographical plot of land with no more significance than any other.

I am simply disputing that the term “mongrel race” and “indigenous” when used by the Left has been clearly defined.
Mongrel in what sense?, by how much?, In comparison to who? Why should it matter ?
Why does this validate the notion that mass immigration must be beneficial ?
If true for Britain ..does this give Sweden and Japan special dispensation?

If for whatever reason this qualifies me in your estimate to be some kind of Nazi ” eugenics ideologue” or even remotely resembling one, then please inform me without delay, because if it does somebodies going to get a bollocking and it won’t be me.

All the best
journeyman

55. journeyman

@Sally

Keep up the good work. I’m glad your on our side.

In Solidarity Comrade (wink-wink nudge-nudge)

journeyman.

56. Nick Cohen is a Tory

“Ok. No I’m not a eugenics ideologue. I know bugger all about the subject. I think it has something to do with the Nazis and breeding a race of Aryan supermen or something.”
Don’t worry journeyman you are not in the superman man bracket.

I have good days and bad days when posting comments and even I have to admit looking back at them that on this occasion my posts have been much to ragged and rambling. This was a bad day. I was tired.
Is that pissed up “tired and emotional”

I
1) “A distaste for borders (one big borderless world )”
A little like the British empire or Adam Smith economics of free movement of labour.

2) “The claim that there have never been a peoples indigenous to Britain.”
Who the Celts ? I am all for London to be returned to the Celtic races

3)” The Left claims that the British are a ” mongrel race” as part of its argument in support of immigration.( As in mongrel dog i suspect)”

Not supporting immigration old bean, but that introducing the fact that we all have a fairly mixed genetic make up and that humans have progressed when their has been an increase in the gene pool. We all mongrels apart from the Pharoahs and maybe the Royal Family or the mountain women/men of Kentucky

4) “And in debates on immigration , you’d reckon that the Left have so much contempt and distain at the mention of national identity that Britain for them is just another geographical plot of land with no more significance than any other.”
That is not true, most Labour supporters will have their England T shirts and we will, along with all the white, black or brown brown supporters consoling each other when we get knocked out in the quarter finals.

“Why does this validate the notion that mass immigration must be beneficial ?”
As a trades unionist leftist I have problem with mass immigration because it reduces wages and it is a use of non union labour undermining workers rights but it is based on the fact that the immigrants may be Aussies, Poles or Pakistanis.

“If for whatever reason this qualifies me in your estimate to be some kind of Nazi ” eugenics ideologue” or even remotely resembling one, then please inform me without delay, because if it does somebodies going to get a bollocking and it won’t be me.”

You are not a Nazi just a plonker

@ 54 journeyman

From the above, I’d say try reading over what you are going to post before actually splurging your stream of consciousness and inflicting it on everyone else. A little judicious editing might go a long way to dispelling the impression you are a Nazi eugenics ideologue – whether it will qualify you as a “not-plonker” remains to be seen.

There is a long and baleful history on this site of extremists of both right and left spouting their equally fatuous takes on immigration, asylum seekers and the supposed conspiracy amongst the “liberal elite” (whatever that is) to promote the hysterical fantasy thay have of a “changed Britain”, the imminent danger of Sharia law being imposed and enforced consumption of Chicken Tikka Masala.

Accepting your statement above, perhaps you don’t deserve to be banned…. as for the rest of the content vis a vis the supposed dangers of immigration .. “J’accuse!”

I am indebted to Jackie Ashley of the Guardian for words which sum up David Cameron – “smug and preachy” – and to-day’s Politics Show for the addition of “boring”. He created the term “broken society” which as a member of The Bullingdon Club he initiated when, [edited out], he and fellow Bullingdonians trashed restaurants because their respective daddies could come and pick up the tab. And now accompanied on a buying mission of the marginals with the owner of the Tory Party – the dodgy Mr. Sleaze of Belize “Lord” Ashcroft whose Bank of Belize – with a mysteriously gained wealth which surpasses the GDP of Belize itself – bought offshore tax concessions from the impoverished government of Belize and who lied his way into the House of Lords with William Corncrake Voiced Batty Boy Hague’s collusion – wants to become Prime Minister as is his right as a posh Tory boy. He is a Eurosceptic with a deep contempt for the EU which accounts for 64% of our trade. He cooperated in getting us into the disastrous Iraq war which had horrifying effects for over a million innocent people many thousands of them being children as innocent as the babies he has the nerve to kiss and he wants to waste £80 billion on the outdated Trident. He should be in the dock standing trial with Blair. Both are war criminals.

Gordon Brown signed the cheque for Iraq. He is equally as guilty. He allowed bankers and big business to rob the country’s money and divert the profits into the offshore tax havens – mainly British dependancies which deprive Her Majesty’s Revenue of an annual £45billion – enough to repay the bank caused deficit over a few years.

Nick Clegg is a refreshing breeze as a politician whose honesty will restore confidence in politics and the Mother of Parliaments. He and Vince Cable and his cohorts of bright young intellectuals are the answer we need to save the country from the the tiredness and corruption of Tory and Labour politics. I am voting for him.

The economic argument for immigration has two different components – firstly for the economy in general and secondly for the state finances.

I think the line Clegg used was to “take illegal immigrants out of the hands of criminal gangs and put them into the hands of the taxman.”

Obviously what happens then will depend on which political party directs the taxman (and other agencies), but the indication that the LibDems are intending to equalise the relationship between the state and the different economic classes of individuals affected rather than stick their head in the sand about the issue or offer impossibly unrealistic promises to resegregate johnny foreigner from our happily-assimilated neighbours is a big mark in their favour.

And it also says much more about their commitment to equality than drawing attention to the more visible aspects of gender and ethnic balance of their frontbench!

On the other hand the social argument around immigration depends entirely on how we view that relationship between the state and the individual and where we think it should be.

So maybe it’s worth asking what people think about Hazel Blears and Baroness Scotland and whether or not their actions don’t fail on both counts.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. drivelcast

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  2. realLibs

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  3. Tank the Tories

    I voted for him on HoT too! RT @andy_s_64 RT @libcon The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu < bye then!

  4. dominic newton

    is interested in the fact that pretty much everyone trashing the guardian's choice is newly registered….?? http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  5. Alex Collins

    This. RT @libcon The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  6. Steve Roden

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  7. Martin Binfield

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  8. Sam Dickinson

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  9. Joe Otten

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  10. Cat

    RT @Will_Rhodes: RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/ajvXHM

  11. mike currie

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  12. Gary Banham

    A further argument for supporting the Lib Dems. #votelibdem RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  13. Epsom Lib Dems

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  14. Liberal Conspiracy

    The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  15. Andy Sutherland

    RT @libcon The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu < bye then!

  16. Another endorsement for the Lib Dems – this time from Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] Hundal, founding editor of the most influential left-of-centre blog Liberal Conspiracy, has just blogged his endorsement of the Lib Dems for the coming election: After last night’s debate one thing [...]

  17. Lee Griffin

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  18. Ashley Chisholm

    @LABOUR_MEDIA_HQ Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  19. Ashley Chisholm

    @LABOUR_MEDIA_HQ Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  20. Ashley Chisholm

    @campbellclaret Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  21. Ashley Chisholm

    @bulsonline Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  22. Ashley Chisholm

    @jagsingh Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  23. Ashley Chisholm

    @LabourWIN Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  24. John Q. Publican

    RT @sunny_hundal: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  25. English Cynic

    RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/ajvXHM

  26. thepoliticalcat

    RT @Will_Rhodes: RT @libcon: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/ajvXHM

  27. zohra moosa

    Agreed – Labour policy on migration is pants. RT: @sunny_hundal

    The Guardian endorses the Libdems & I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  28. Ollie Craig

    RT @sunny_hundal: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  29. Mark Townsend

    RT @libcon The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I’m with them http://bit.ly/cLvNFO

  30. sunny hundal

    The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  31. Kate B

    RT @sunny_hundal: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  32. Damian Mendes-Kelly

    RT @sunny_hundal The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  33. Lizzy Pain

    RT @sunny_hundal: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  34. Ron Gordon

    Adios!<RT @sunny_hundal: The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I'm with them http://bit.ly/a6HiYu

  35. Ashley Chisholm

    @labourhome Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  36. Ashley Chisholm

    @labourhome Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  37. Ashley Chisholm

    @DMiliband Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  38. Ashley Chisholm

    @Ed_Miliband Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  39. Ashley Chisholm

    @VirendraSharma Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  40. Ashley Chisholm

    @LabourList Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  41. Ashley Chisholm

    @LabourParty Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  42. Ashley Chisholm

    @alexhilton Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  43. Ashley Chisholm

    @Kerry4MP Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  44. Ashley Chisholm

    @tom_watson Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  45. Ashley Chisholm

    @BevaniteEllie Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  46. Ashley Chisholm

    @Tweet4Labour Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  47. Ashley Chisholm

    @SeemaMalhotra1 Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  48. Ashley Chisholm

    @voteliambyrne Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  49. Ashley Chisholm

    @DouglasGE2010 Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  50. Ashley Chisholm

    @Vernon4Gedling Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  51. Ashley Chisholm

    @SamuelCoates Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  52. Ashley Chisholm

    @LabourWomensNet Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  53. Ashley Chisholm

    @OpBlackVote Sunny Hundal endorses Lib Dems http://bit.ly/dB3sKQ

  54. Why I wouldn’t vote Lib Dem « Harpymarx

    [...] from the editorial in the Guardian, to comrades for write for Liberal Conspiracy (Laurie Penny and Sunny Hundal) sure as well that there are many on the Left who are considering their voting options. Tactical [...]

  55. Why I’m voting for the Lib Dems and David Rendel in Newbury « Left Outside

    [...] I’ve marched for so I am happy to say I am more enthusiastic about this than Nick Clegg. Like Sunny and Chris the Lib Dem immigration policy is the least inhumane of the [...]

  56. sunny hundal

    @danieloprey I did vote for them: http://bit.ly/ajvXHM – but I've always been a big critic of Labour on civil libs http://bit.ly/9tfjGN

  57. Huw Lemmey

    @OwenJones84 Not a sellout, just a marketplace of ideas http://tiny.cc/0hdkf http://tiny.cc/agsms http://tiny.cc/durg5

  58. Lisa Ansell

    Vote Lib Dem(sympathy with the poor )in 2010.http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/01/the-guardian-endorses-the-libdems-and-im-with-them/

  59. Hugo K Biedermann

    @AKblackandred http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb All you need to know about Hundals "broad coalition" in 3 urls

  60. Hugo K Biedermann

    @stfumikey http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb All you need to know about Hundals "broad coalition" in 3 urls

  61. Hugo K Biedermann

    Sunny Hundals "broad coalition" in three easy steps http://t.co/KCdhs4c http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb

  62. Michael Oswell

    RT @spitzenprodukte: Sunny Hundals "broad coalition" in three easy steps http://t.co/KCdhs4c http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb

  63. Phil Dickens

    RT @spitzenprodukte: @AKblackandred http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb All you need to know about Hundals "broa …

  64. Hugo K Biedermann

    @HarpyMarx http://t.co/uMivVXb http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/KCdhs4c Sunny takes centrism to an extreme.

  65. Hugo K Biedermann

    @boutmycolumn @stormingheaven http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb SUNNY HUNDAL'S ANTI-SECTARIANISM IN 3 EASY URLS

  66. abolish wage labour

    RT @spitzenprodukte: @boutmycolumn @stormingheaven http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb SUNNY HUNDAL'S ANTI-SECTA …

  67. Hugo K Biedermann

    @boutmycolumn @stormingheaven http://t.co/KCdhs4c http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb SUNNY HUNDAL'S ANTI-SECTARIANISM IN 3 EASY URLS

  68. abolish wage labour

    RT @spitzenprodukte: @boutmycolumn @stormingheaven http://t.co/KCdhs4c http://t.co/p7JsakT http://t.co/uMivVXb SUNNY HUNDAL'S ANTI-SECTA …

  69. Polite Ire

    @AvaVidal Clueless opportunist at that – Supports Labour http://t.co/XaxXgp8 Tory http://t.co/w7gTpff AND Libdems http://t.co/66LwQ4w

  70. Siôn

    Just stumbled upon @Sunny_Hundal's call for a strong Lib dem vote in the 2010 general election http://t.co/KEhNizRM

  71. sunny hundal

    @LucyRigby nope – this is why I voted Libdem last time – http://t.co/I2ykodwG

  72. Dan Hodges

    @LucyRigby nope – this is why I voted Libdem last time – http://t.co/I2ykodwG

  73. Alexander Wickham

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  74. Raheem Kassam

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  75. Dan Clegg

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  76. Top Tory Tweets

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  77. Narrative 2020

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  78. bowforward

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  79. The Commentator

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  80. Bow Group

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  81. KeepRightOnline

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  82. The Commentator

    In 08 Sunny says vote Tory: http://t.co/Fi0LHHLs '10 Lib: http://t.co/yQ5b1900 '11Lab: http://t.co/BaSmlngE '12 Green: http://t.co/Hyqun2aR

  83. ProletarianDemocracy

    RT "@sunny_hundal Fuck you, Republicans" From the man who gave us "The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I’m with them" http://t.co/FF1OsgFF

  84. TheCreativeCrip

    RT "@sunny_hundal Fuck you, Republicans" From the man who gave us "The Guardian endorses the Libdems and I’m with them" http://t.co/FF1OsgFF

  85. Huw Lemmey

    @PereLebrun @joolsd @piercepenniless @true_wheel Not quite: first http://t.co/JZTPvL0E then http://t.co/uug7spBt then http://t.co/a94MFkHL





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.