Lord Duckhunter

Thanks for the reply, I still think it's unworkable. One more question, is there a limit to immigration in these areas. Once the jobs are all filled I presume nobody else will be let in. Because that's what the Tories propose Country wide and the Lib/Dems attack them for it.

I think it's as bad, but the great African anti apartheid campaigners like Peter Hain are very quiet on the issue, despite having been in govt. Can it be white racism bad, black racism-turn the other way.

I dismiss it out of hand because it's unworkable. It's just an election ploy, to appeal to both sides of the debate (as they try to do with most issues). It seems you are for skilled workers from outside the EU, but not unskilled workers, I think even Dune will be in agreement with you on that one.

I suggest the logic at play here is an electrol one.They can tell the right, we want immigration controls and the left, we're for immigration. These areas that they are going to allow immigration in, once they've reached their quota of immigrants, I presume they'll shut off the tap in that area. For example if Dorset needs farm workers, they'll allow non EU people to fill the jobs. Once all the jobs are filled I presume they'll then stop Non EU workers working in Dorset. Isn't that a fixed number of allowed immigrants, something that they attack the Tories for? Is this policy to allow a certain amount of immigration in a certain area (a fixed number of Non EU workers can work in Dorset?) When the Tories propose a fixed number for the whole Country, the Lib/Dems attack it. Or are they saying no Immigration in London, but an open door policy in Dorset?

I want immigration strictly controlled, whether they are white, black, muslim, or whatever. I do not want millions of Australians or white Americans swamping this Country. It's funny how the lefties were all against South Africa, but we hardly get a peep out of them about Zimbabwe, and the treatment of the white population there.

I am no racist. Perhaps you could answer the questions. What happens if a worker has a permit to work in Dorset. Can he live in London and commute to Dorset? What happens if he starts work in Bristol, will he be forceable removed (ala BNP) from the Country? What if he's a roofer and his boss gets a roofing job in London, does the boss have to lay him off and employ someone with a permitt to work in London? If this man has a child, upon reaching 16 can the child work anywhere or does he have to stick to Dorset?

I presume there's no unemployment in these areas then and nobody on benefit, where is this Utopia? If they then move into the Cities, that are overcrowded, are the Lib/Dems going to deport them, or forceable move them back to their allowed zones?

It's like most of the Lib/Dems policies, unworkable. Can they live in another area and commute Mon-Fri? What if the firm they're working for relocates to an area where there are already too many immigrants, wont they lose their job?. If they've worked in this "allowed immigrant" area for 10 years, can they then be part of the amnesty, or do you have to be an illigal to take advantage of that? If they have children, do the children have to stick to these "allowed zones" or can they get jobs anywhere?

Just because you dont agree with them doesn't mean they've got no ideas. That's a rather simplistic approach to take. Is not cancelling the NI rise an idea?, what about cutting waste, what about elected Police Chiefs, what about referendum over council tax rises? The Tories have a whole raft of ideas and yet because you dont agree with them, seem to think they dont count. They're certainly better ideas than the Labour one , 5 more years of Gordon Brown.

There are plenty of people on benefits looking for work.

Sounds like a BNP policy to me. Will there be check points on the roads out of the areas they're allowed in? They only have to disappear for a few years, and they'll then get an amnesty The "policy" is just a way of "connecting" with voters that are both left and right.In reality it's unworkable

I find it strange that people who said Cameron was style of substance are now praising Clegg. With his writting down of the questioners name and uncosted back of a fag packet calculations, anyone unfamilar with who the 3 were would have thought he was the "aire to Blair" people keep talking about. The best thing about the debate is that the Lib/Dems policies will now be shone a light on. We'll see their uncosted tax bribe, the simplistic policy around Trident,the amensty for illigal immigrants and there flip flopping from left to right depending on which seat they're fighting. Their loony pro European policies, including joining the Euro, will be exposed. They are at the core further left wing than the Labour leadership (although you wont see that if you live in a Tory area). This is a Party, let us not forget, that went into the last election with a seriously ill leader. A leader that had an illness that however unfortunate affects people's judgement and ability to do the job of PM. The Lib/Dem leadership, including Saint Vince Cable, knew about this illness, yet covered it up for electrol benefit. It is also a Party that complains about the Tories style over substance, but ditched Sir Menzies Campbell for a more media friendly leader. They are a party that claim to be whiter than white and yet have taken dodgey money, and have had MP's caught up in the expenses row.

With the publics trust in Politics at an all time low, I can't believe they'll elect that proven liar Brown back to office. His list of mistakes is endless, raiding the pension funds, selling gold at rock bottom prices, and changing the bank regulations amongst them. However his willingness to throw money at unreformed public services was far and away the biggest. He blocked any reforms that were proposed by Blair and wasted millions and millions of our money. We've now got a massive bill to pay, but Doctors do less for more, you can't get an NHS dentist, and crime is up.There was a once in a lifetime chance to really make a difference to our public services. Thanks to the economy he was handed and the massive majority they had, real reform could have given us real change in the standard of our services. Yes they've gone up a bit, but nowhere near the amount they should have with the money spent.Our money, not Browns, our money, money that we will have to pay back long after Gordon Brown is a painful, but thankfully distant, memory.

If Pards turned Celtic down to stay at League one Saints, 99% of football supporters in the Country would think he was barmy. We know we're on the brink of something here, and let's hope Alan feels the same way. However, as much as I dont want to think about it, I dont think anyone managing in League 1 will turn them down (Let's assume Norwich are going up). At the end of the day it'll depend on what they want and what they can afford. They appear to be in the mire financialy, so will proberly wait to see whose available for free in the summer. I beleive the next month and a half is the most important in this Clubs history for many a year.If we can sneak into the play offs and win them, all talk of people leaving will go out the window. None of our players will attract bids from premier League sides, unless it's the Wigans and Boltons of the world, and I seriously think players would turn them down if we were one season away from the top flight ourselves. Same with Pards, with ML's money, the squad and support we have, in the CCC this is a great job.

I'll proberly get crucified on here, but I believe that Celtic is a massive job, compared to a League 1 Saints. 50,000 every week and guaranteed European football and Cup Finals. Saints in CCC is a different kettle of fish, but if we're still in League one you can see the attraction. If we're third in this League come Xmas people will be calling for his head. He'll be going there at the right time and not like WGS who had to follow Martin O Neil. Look at it from a neutrals point of view, Celtic or League 1 Saints? Personally I think they'd be better of with Avram Grant.

Clegg has an advantage over the others, and should come away with a easy victory. At the moment the political establishment is held in utter contempt by the majority of the population. Clegg can easily position himself to take advantage of this. He can say "their wrong", "oh and so are they".He can position himself on the side of one or the other depending on whose doing the attacking. If it's about Brown's record he can attack that, if it's about Tory cuts or the 1980's he can attack them. The most skilled Political speakers of the past 40 years have been Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. I suggest that if either of them were dealt the hand that Clegg's been given tonight, they would wipe the floor with the other 2.I'm not talking about policies, but the way they'll position themselves against the other 2 and on the side of the people. You only have to watch Question Time to see how the Non Politican on there, gets a fairer hearing from the public, even if they're speaking complete and utter rubbish. As for Cameron and the complaints about the format; the main thing the Tories wanted was to get the debates on at all. Tony Blair despite being far ahead in the polls, ducked them as did the Tories when they were in charge. An agreement had to be made and the format looks too formal and stale to me. I hope that the Chairperson is able to pull them up when their talking rubbish and present facts to them. Pretty much the same way Dimble does on QT. I just hope that Brown is not able to continualy evade answering the question asked as he does at PMQ's. I would think that Mandleson has drummed about 10 phrases into his brain that he'll keep reapting over and over and over again. One thing that depresses me about the whole thing will be the reaction tomorrow. The Sun will declare cameron the winner, The Mirror will say Brown. The BBC will try to stay impartial, but their anti Right Wing bias will show through and Sky News will declare Cameron the winner. Everyone will say Cleggy did well.The media in this Country seem incapable of reporting objectively when it comes to political debate, and I include the Broadsheets in that.

In 2008 he was asked about Mr Browns backing for the bank takeovers he said“We have no quarrel with what he did. That seemed the right approach",Yet a mere four months later that had changed , he admitted: “It’s fair to say I did change my position on that issue.” At the Lib Dem conference in September 2008 he said “The Government must not compromise the independence of the Bank of England by telling it to slash interest rates.”. Within weeks it had changed to “the Chancellor should urge the Governor of the Bank to make a large cut in interest rates”. In January last year he called the governments decision to print more money “The Robert Mugabe school of economics” Then just nine months later He backtracks by saying it is right by saying “there is a Robert Mugabe school but if I gave that impression I was wrong” He was also part of the Lib/Dem establishment that covered up Charles Kennedy's illness. He was quite prepared to allow someone with those health problem become Prime Minister.

He'll have to stick to the same line, rather than his present policy of flip flopping depending on who he's talking to. The Tories will not enter such a pact, in my opinion. As a PR supporter and completely against the "unfair first past the post system", what will Clegg do if Labour win more seats, but the Tories poll 1.5million more votes. Watch as he tries to justify doing a deal with Labour as they have the most seats. Surely a party as principled as the Lib/Dems who truely believe that "every vote counts", should deal with the party that polls the most votes.

That seems pretty sensible to me. You can, as others have pointed out, already do this under a Labour Govt.To me there's only 2 sides to take in this debate, either for or against. You can not say, we're for Labour's independent schools, but against Tory ones. Personally, I thought the Tory manifesto gave pause for thought. I am all for power being given back to the people on a whole range of issues. I would like to see directly elected officals in a variety of local roles, and more freedom for local councils to set local taxes ect. One of the great thing about American politics is the localisation of issues, from primary elections to directly elected Police chiefs and referundum on issues affected local people. The strange thing was it was the Tories that took away a lot of Local decisions because of the loony left wing councils of the 80's. My take on it is if the voters of Liverpool, London and Glasgow want the Derek Hatton's of the world to run their cities, let them. The whole thing about localisation is the local people get the officals they deserve and want.If they mess it up, then kick them out. It wont happen of course, there's proberly a EU directive making it impossible.

Shouldn't they hear Peter Robinson as well, because the DUP could hold the balance of power. If the Tories poll more votes than Labour, but fail to gain more seats, will Cleggy stick to his "every vote counts" prinicple, or will he abandon it in a rush for influence. Surely the Party that "leaves those sort of decisions to the public", wont prop up a Labour administration, with less votes. Or will they enforce my long held belief that the Lib/Dems are far and away the most hypocritical party of the whole lot.

In the British elections they got under 10% of the seats. Clegg will never be PM, so should not be in the debates.

So is Lord Pearson, Caroline Lucas, and Nick Griffin. In fact Lord Pearson's party polled more votes than Clegg in the PR European elections. Only a potential PM should be allowed in the debates and I've got as much chance as becoming PM as Cleggy.

The last elections in this country they got 13% of the vote, just over 2X's the BNP's vote.The last general election they got under 10% of the seats. Clegg will never be PM, so what he's doing on the Leader's debate is beyond me.

Perhaps the pledge not to raise income tax in their last manifesto was a grammatical error like this spelling mistake. Perhaps it meant to say "we will raise income tax", instead of "we wont" because that's what they did. They also promised us a referundum and went back on that and I believe they also went back on their word over tuition fees in an earlier one. Dont forget in the words of Mandy, this manifesto is "Blair plus".

The Lib/Dems are like those Sports reporters who pick their England teams before a big match, their sides never have to play. Same here, they could say what they want, as they'll never get to govern. The fight seats on the basis of which area they're in. Right wing agenda in Tory area, left in Labour. We had them in power locally and the Council Tax went through the roof, luckily they got kicked out. They need to make their position on any hung parliament clear. Clegg keeps saying that he'll leave it to the British people to decide.Seeing as they're are all for PR and every vote counts I presume that if the Tories get more votes than any other party, they'll refuse to get into bed with Labour. The electrol system in this country means that the Tories could get 1.5 million votes more than any other Party and still not have a majority. If this was the case how can the party of "every vote counts", prop up a Labour administration that got so many less votes. They are getting way too much airtime for such a minority.