Ok then: so here are some more of my "positions" on the hot issues that YOU want to know about. I'd be interested to see the other parties answer the same questions.
(Original post by shylock30012001)
1) what's your stance on the entry of foreigners into the country/just having foreigners in the country?
Foreigners (what e vague term) are essential to the British economy, and any damage that a small minority do, be it crime, or violence, is far outweighed by the influx of cheap labour that comes to the UK. I personally can see three types of foreigners who come to the UK, each of which have difference priveleges.
1) EU citizens
EU citizens have the right to live, work and study in the UK, and vote in local elections. As a British citizen living in France, I can see full well the benefits of such a policy. It allows the free flow of qualified labour, and the different nature of training abroad allows people with different skills to come to the UK and work. This is only good for our economy. This free movement is reciprocal, and allows British companies to send their staff and set up bases around Europe. With such a policy, everyone is a winner. I have no problem with EU citizens living and working in the UK.
2) non EU economic immigrants
Again, I have little problem with non-EU economic immigrants. I think perhaps there is room to be more stringent about how long people may stay, and whether we permit families to come over too (once a family comes it is very hard for the authorities to remove an economic immigrant if he/she is no longer working). However, given that the UK is at full employment, we now need to import cheap labour, because British citizens go for all the best jobs and it's difficult to recruit unskilled workers. Equally, importing skilled labour (in limited quantities and where it is needed ie the NHS) is beneficial to the economy.
3) Asylum seekers
I believe people seeking asylum have every right to come to the UK, and we should continue to welcome asylum seekers. However, I think a system of detention centres is the only way to control the flow of asylum seekers into our country. These centres will centralise the processing of asylum seekers, speeding the process up. I believe that two weeks should be adequate time to process a family, and a further three weeks for an appeal hearing. However, if the first appeal hearing fails they should be returned to region where the failed asylum seeker came from.
Such centres will show that Britain is not a soft touch on asylum, and make us less attractive for fake asylum seekers. It will not leave us open to failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK, who cannot work and therefore are not beneficial to the economy. Such a system works for Australia, who have seen a reduction in the number of asylum seekers since such a system was introduced. I believe it can work for us too.
2) what's your stance on the BNP?
I believe the BNP are a scare tactics party who don't understand the benefits of international economic trade, immigration or multiculturalism, and play on the fears of the electorate. They come across as ill informed and unrealistic. I wouldn't waste my time with them if I were you.
3) please state your stance on the country's relationship with america.
America remains, in economic terms, a strong and stable trading partner. However, I acknowedge the recklessness of the current administration and am not happy with persistant human rights abuses abroad committed by the US, especially whilst they preach a doctrine of moral perfection. I believe Britain plays a valuable role in restraining America and american action. However, we should be prepared for a frank and honest discussion of how the "special relationship" goes forward.
4) your stance on the pension scheme
British national pensions are in a mess-that is undeniable. I intend to lobby for a 50% top rate of tax for earnings over £100,000 to fill this hole, and further windfall taxes on large UK companies if necessary. British pensioners left us a legacy of freedom and hope, and should not be left to starve whilst Britains richest feast on the profits of this freedom
5) your stance on privitisation and government owned industry/services etc
In all I am for privatisation of certain services and believe that renationalisation of the rail industry would be too costly (and either way the rail companies seem to be getting their acts together). Living in France, where a lot of public services are controlled by a monopoly service, I can see how inefficient certain services are (such as France Telecom). I believe that certain services should be competitive (telecoms, provision of local services such a refuse collection), but it is in our interest for some services to remain under government control; notably Royal Mail and the NHS
6) your stance on anti-terrorism
I like all the parties, find terrorism deplorable. However, fighting terrorism should not come at a cost to our civil liberties. I am against the introduction of ID cards, which I have pledged not to take up should they become obligatory, and against the erosion of the rule of law and extended custody of suspected terrorists. Note that in my opinion the most effective way to reduce the risk of terrorism in our country would be to prevent failed asylum seekers from remaining; a system of detention centres would permit this. Not strictly related, although I am critical of the case for war in Iraq, I believe we should commit our troops there untill the job is done.