“Yes, the quota can be exceeded - the important thing is that we are seen to have things under control”
“I see, Humphrey”
Seriously, if you can borrow from future years, what’s the point of the quota? Isn’t that just a ‘target’?
And everyone gets turned away next year if next year’s quota is used up this year? Or do we start using the quota from the next but one year…ad infinitum.
Eventually there will be nonbody left in the UK except asylum seekers, but tha’s OK becasue according to the quota system, we won’t let any more in for the next hundred years.
:smack:
Note that less than a third of asylum applications are ultimately successful, and so the unsuccessful applicants might actually comprise the entire quota not just of next year but the year after that.
I suppose it is. As you say there will always be impossible cases - so we might as well be honest about it. But better a target than no clear idea of what we’re doing.
Needless to say this is all moot as we’re not going to win anyway.
tha’s -> that’s
becasue -> because
How come I can make typos so easily except when I’m trying to reproduce them in a correction post?
/rhetorical question
//not a Daily Mail reader though
How very Blairite of you, to embrace the culture of the target 
Watch it mush! Don’t liken me to that mouthbreather.
Question: What’s the political makeup over there these days?
When I was growing up, it was something like 40% Labour, 40% Tory, and 20% Liberal – but with the Liberals so broadly strewn across constituencies that only in Scotland, Wales, and Devon/Cornwall, and one or two suburban constituencies, could they ever elect MPs, and darn’ few of them.
So you had a layout of
3xx – Labour or Tory – whichever way the “swing” voters went this election
2xx – Tory or Labour – whichever way they didn’t go
10-20 – Liberal
5-8 – Celtic nationalists (SNP, Plaid Cymru, and for all I know the Cornish Liberation Front)
25 or so – Various Northern Ireland parties that appeared to be caricatures, in the original sense, of the major GB parties – their policies exaggerated and carried to extremes
I gather from things said above that the LibDems have actually got a chance of being more than a coalition-builder this time, of being a serious challenge to the Tories.
(One small aside I forgot to make earlier - I too have known people in the construction industry worried about their job security due to immigrant labour. However, they tended to tell me about this while I was serving them in the pub, mid-afternoon, and while they worked out how long until the foreman noticed they were gone. It wasn’t difficult to spot the flaw in their argument.)
For Poly and others. British voters have become increasingly adept at tactical voting, inflating the Lib Dems somewhat artificially.
Latest Mori poll: 38% Lab, 32% Con, 22% Lib. The Lib Dem’s translation of votes into seats is always unpredictable. (But I note that Charles Kennedy has a satisfaction rating 35 point higher than any of the others.) And the two most important-rated issues are defence and the NHS, which is why both main parties are happy to get talking about law & order and immigration, where they know they can make the Lib Dems look weak.
The opinion polls are around: 38% Labour 34% Tory 20% Libdems with the rest split between the others eg Scot nats, greens etc. As you say Northern Ireland has it’s own parties (and is very welcome to the lot of 'em)
The liberals may well do quite well this time - but they will still be a long way behind the Tories, who in turn will trail the labour party. For a variety of reasons a large percentage of the vote doesn’t transfer into a lot of seats (or in the case of parties like the BNP and greens - into any seats at all).
Sorry: "inflating the Lib Dems artificially given the first pas the post system. As GM says, they actually get far fewer seats than their opinion polls deserve: we tolerate this ostensibly in order to avoid the perpetually hung parliaments which proportional respresentation produces, or so the argument goes.
Close: Mebyon Kernow. Hardly a great political force, though 
I understand that cabinet ministers are also MPs (which is not the case here in the US - Cabinet members do not hold simultaneous elected office), but do the cabinet ministers go door to door outside their districts as well?
I would have enjoyed a visit from Donald Rumsfeld during the last election, but only to the extent that I would have the opportunity to berate him face to face.
It’s also worth pointing out that people vote in different ways in different elections as the systems are different. For example UKIP tend to poll quite well in the Euro elections yet won’t do anywhere near as well in the General Elections. Also Wandsworth has three MPs - all labour but has a hugely tory local authority.
Yes they do - well-known figures will help out with important parts of the campaign, such as in marginal constituencies. Most prominent figures will be in safe seats, and so do not actually need to do a lot of campaigning for their own vote. (I’ll be unlikely to see any activists on the doorstep at all, being in a very safe Tory area. They’ll be in neighbouring constituencies, where there’s more chance of an actual change.)
They don’t have to be MPs - they can be Lords too.
Yes the cabinet ministers do go from door to door (more accurately their minions do and they ask you if you want to meet them - and they come to see those that ask), but this only happens in marginal seats - ie the ones that make a difference and Putney (which is my constituency) is one of the most marginal there is, and also as it’s near to Central London we get rather more electioneering than we would if we were further away. I’ll get Blair no doubt - I’ll set the dog on him.
I just read the Wikipedia’s article on George Galloway – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway. Damn, that’s the man you Brits need for Prime Minister! 
I know (vaguely) what Eton is, but does this statement have some cultural significance in British politics that I’m missing?