₦airaland Forum

All the skilled workers the country needs can be obtained by means of legal immigration.The problem is that if you reward law breakers for their unlawful acts,you set a bad precedent.

Yes to legal immigration
No to illegal immigration

I wholeheartedly support immigration so long as its done in accordance with the law.It is grossly unfair for people to be made to go through an incredible maze of procedures in order to migrate legally to the US ,only for others to do so by illegal means and then be given amnesty.

You are effectively rewarding people for breaking the law.

The NHS is quite political and debating on it one stands the risk sounding politically incorrect, the fact is that the NHS has improved evidenced by quick access to GP's and shorter waiting list and please note the NHS was and is a labour initiative, it was introduced by a Labour government. So if you say Tony Blair spent 4 times more to achieve that, what did the conservatives achieve during their reign, a dilapitated health sector, education sector in ruins, selective education seperating the "so called" gifted children who more often come from wealthy homes.

If you keep throwing money at a problem,naturally there will be some improvements.The problem is that the improvements do not match the amount of money spent.Money shouldn't be spent for its sake.Sure,things have improved since the Tories but then the Tory NHS was an improvement from the previous Labour Govt(comparing different eras again) and this was acheived with far less money.Pouring tax payers money down the drain in return for minor improvements is pointless.

I mentioned earlier that Norway and Switzerland cannot be compared to the UK but you suspiciously channeled the arguement towards standard of living. Whilst i agree that this countries enjoy better quality of life i really can't correlate that to world politics, does China enjoy this quality of life the answer is NO, but is it more relevant in World politics compared to Norway and Switzerland the answer is Yes

Thanks for proving my point.China achieved its status in politics without having to be part of a body like the EU,just the same way Norway and Switzerland achieved theirs in the economy without EU help.

Agreed UK enjoys a permanent seat on the UNSC but hey that doesnt translate into an alliance, it is a recognition of the influence that being a member of the EU ensures.

The UK has been on the UNSC way before the EU came into existence so i don't know how "it is a recognition of the influence that being a member of the EU ensures"

Perhaps national interest was wrong nomenclature, maybe i should state it that being in the EU avails the opportunity of support in terms of crises. If UK were to go to war who are more likelhy to send troops, would China or Iran send troops NO, but members of an alliance are OBLIGATED to support and the larger picture interms of trade, investment flows etc are quite huge.

That's not true,NATO already serves that purpose.Members of the EU are not obligated to support each member state in the event of war.That obligation only arises with respect to NATO members.

States like Norway and Switzerland already enjoy free trade with the EU.Negotiating trade terms could be done just as effectively outside the EU than inside.The EU suffers as a result of policies such as the CAP(Common Agricultural Policy) which is a handicap in  negotiating favorable trade terms with other trading nations.The UK also has to spend a considerable amount of money as aid to new member states.

You have provided stats on the GDP growth rate which is a good measure of economic growth stating that the average in the Blair govt was 2.7% as compared to the conservatives 2.4%

Average per capita income growth was 2.4% for those 2 eras.

Though i do not totally disagree with you figures i attach an excel spreadsheet showing GDP growth rate. Particularly please note 1991 where there was a negative growth of -1.4% and observe the trend and your so called "boom". The arguement is that the Labour government has ensured a continous boom as against a conservative that records erratic figures one year low another year high.

It is true that the UK plunged into a recession  after the mishandling of the ERM but this ignores nearly 12 years of growth under the Tories dating back to 1979.The Tories,unlike Labour, inherited a weak economy.Who knows what will happen to the UK economy in the coming years?

It is always difficult to make valid comparisons over different eras where the circumstances were different.For instance,you noted that interest rates averaged 8.95% under the Tories,while it averaged 5.3% under Labour.At first sight,Labour's record looks impressive.

However, your point falls apart when you remember that while rates were at 7.05% when Labour took office,at Nov 1979,rates were a whopping 17%!The Tories brought down rates from 17% to 7% by 1997.From this perspective,Labor's record begins to look less impressive.-http://www.bized.co.uk/dataserv/chron/kf5579.htm#1979

Merely looking at the stats while comparing the economy under the Tories  with that under Labour does not allow for a proper appreciation  of the contribution of the Tories to the UK's economy.Do you know that there used to be power cuts in the 70s?People used to wait for  months just to get connected to a phone line.

One good measure of the economic wellbeing of the nation is to look at income per capita.In 1979,when the Tories took over,it stood at $6889,by 1997,it was $20,000-STATS-PAGE 9 .That is effectively a tripling of income.You can see that there was a pattern of steady growth long before Labour came into power.That is why I noted initially,that Labour doesn't deserve credit for what they did not start,they only deserve credit for not ruining decades of economic growth.There has been steady growth but that is mainly due to the global economy.The rise of China has helped keep inflation low and strong global growth has meant more foreign investment

As for tax cuts,the failure of Labour to cut tax is shameful.That they are not expected to cut tax doesn't mean they shouldn't.They were also not expected to impose tuition fees,labour manifesto in 1997 dismissed  suggestions of tuition fees for Universities and contained a promise not to impose them.

Tax cuts are good for the economy.In 1979,the top rate of income tax was 83%.It was  tax cuts together with other economic reforms,privatisation of state corporations(BT,BP,BA,e.t.c) that laid the foundation for the present economic stability we are experiencing.

See this link for the council tax cut in Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham-TAX CUT

BlackMamba:
I can't imagine anyone of African descent been anti-immigration. You lack the standing to antagonize illegal immigrants.

If you are a legal immigrant,it is natural to resent the fact that some people have taken the illegal route.The more illegal immigrants there are,the less opportunity for legal immigration.There is nothing wrong in insisting that the law must be complied with.

This is more a case of crude self promotion than anything significant.

There were reports on SkySports News that Utd have agreed a £6.9 million deal for Heinze with Real Madrid.

@Tornadoz

This is the source of the claim that Jews control the media=[url=http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion4.htm#protocol No. 12]PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION[/url] Enjoy,I know you like this kind of stuff 

I was reading a critique of a certain Robert Spencer who was accussed of hate mongering against Muslims due to a polemical book he wrote.What struck me about the criticism was this line:
   
"This book is significant partly because it bases all its perversions of the Qur’an on statements by Muslims."  
 
As Mr Spencer noted,how can it be hate mongering to quote Muslims who are quoting from the Koran and Hadiths? Had he fabricated these quotes himself,the accusation of hate mongering would have been valid.However,as was acknowledged even by his critics,the source of his quotes were Muslims who in turn were quoting the Koran and the hadiths.Work that out for me.

Apparently,someoone announced his wife's death on Wikipedia,13 hours before the Police found the body-

An anonymous user operating a computer traced to Stamford, Conn. — home to World Wrestling Entertainment — posted an entry to pro wrestler Chris Benoit's biography on Wikipedia.org announcing the death of his wife Nancy at least 13 hours before police in suburban Atlanta said they found her body along with her husband's and that of their 7-year-old son, FOXNews.com has learned.

Employees at Wikipedia.org said the posting went live on their site on Monday at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Police, however, said they found the bodies Monday at 2:30 p.m. EDT.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287194,00.html[/url]

86% of respondents are proud to be Nigerians? Yeah. . .right

Beline:
and God fearing because if he has the fear of God he will treat me accordingly as Christ treated the church

Fear is not a reliable factor in inducing good behaviour.Rather the person chooses good behaviour due to a rational thought process than due to trepidation in respect of God's vengeance.

They should build an impenetrable fence along the Mexico border.The Democrats want more Latino immigrants because Latinos are traditionally part of their constituency.Bush's abysmal poll numbers have suffered because of his support for this bill.He should listen more to his conservative base.They are the reason he is in office.

That first one no be dog.Na evil spirit

So i guess we should expect council tax to drop significantly now that the conservatives control more of the councils, i am yet to hear any council that has dropped the council tax. This debate is not on council tax so i wont dwell much, please read the link there are criterias used to determine the council tax and the conservatives are almost as bad as labour on that. You need to read the conservative manifesto they really are not interested in such taxes, it doesnt affect their interest anyway let me move on.

I'm not aware of claiming that Council taxes will drop if the Tories control more of the councils.My point is that Council tax inflation is lower in Tory councils than in Labour councils.As far cutting council taxes,I know for instance that Tory controlled Hammersmith and Fulham cut council taxes this year.Council tax rises have been a big issue for the Tories.

Tony Blair introduced "New labour" in 1997 and saying they didnt campaign on the platform of income re-distribution is like saying theres a difference between six and half a dozen. The polices to expect from a labour govt are clear and increased taxation is one of it just like we expect the conservatives to reduce certain taxes.I introduced income redistribution in the arguement because thats the underligning ideology behind progressive taxation.

Well,you said Blair promised higher taxes when he made no such promise.Labour,traditionally was known as the party of wealth redistribution.When Blair took over from Neil Kinnock,one of the key planks of Blair's "New Labor" was to eschew all talks of redistribution.In effect,he was elected on the basis that the "tax and spend" traditions of the  Labor party was over.He has betrayed people's trust on that issue.So,far from increased taxes being one of the expectations of a new Labour Govt,tax rates were expected to stay fairly stable.

You effectively blame it on Brown.However,it is one of the drawbacks of his regime that he left fiscal policy solely in the hands of Brown.

There is a well established link between higher top rates of tax and lower  tax revenue as a proportion of the entire populace.Please take time to read this link-http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp (Check the 9th paragraph which deals with the UK.)

The idea you call flawed has delivered a strong economy and please labour under Tony Blair delivered a strong economy. The idea that the economy was booming is so inaccurate similar to the arguement that Clinton was lucky. Please its no luck nor is it related to the initia state, its the dynamic flows that was pursued, policies such as the independence of the bank of England ensuring monetary policy decisions is devoid of politics. Its not luck or magic it has been consistent hard work on the part of those responsible for montary policy and a corresponding disciplined fiscal policy on the part of the govt.

Here is an excerpt from a report on the UK economy between 1996 and 1997-The British economy has started to show some considerable strength at the tail end of 1996 and into 1997 with annualized growth topping 4%.-Here is the source-http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/1997denver/compliance/uk/ukmac.htmTo put things in perspective,GDP growth was 2.7% in 2006 and has averaged around that figure since Blair came into power,a figure lower than the growth rate at the inception of the LABOUR Govt.

In addition,average per capita income growth rate between 1986 and 1996 was 2.4%,same as between 1996 and 2003,in other words,no difference.So how Blair "delivered a strong economy" is hard to understand when the eocnomy was booming when he came into power. 

On the EU again i am amused at your analogy, i wonder where Norway and Switzerland are in the scheme of world politics, the influence they exert and why we are not discussing their PM here. Britain is too involved and centre to take the stand you suggest , it would not be in their interest, even the conservatives know that. Why is America a member of NATO and several other alliances, they can as well decide to be alone.

Would Norway and Switzerland become any more involved if they were in the EU?The most important thing is that both countries enjoy living standards far higher than most in the EU including the UK and they did this without the EU.The UK is a permanent member of the UNSC and a world power in its own right.It does not need to be one of 27 members within the EU to protect its interest.The EU takes decisions by consensus and quite often the consensus is not in the UK's interest.In effect,EU membership dilutes and constrains Britain's policy options. The UK is already a member of NATO so I don't see your point.   

I wont bother on the NHS because that line is what the opposition is using to deceive the unenlightened ie that of commesorate spending and results, during the conservative governments why didnt they spend at all, now a govt is spending the issue now, the gain is minimal at least we all agree theres a gain. The opposition till date cannot state clearly their plans for the NHS its all PR, the same line of we would listen to those on ground, which is what Brown will do so i wonder what they will say next.

The question is not spending but how its spent.We are 4 times more likely to die in the UK if surgery was conducted here than in the US.That tax money is being wasted for little benefit is hardly applaudable.

In summary saying Tony Blair acted in conviction in Iraq alone is unfair to the man. The conviction in the guy can be seen in the way he answers questions, in his drive e.g look at the debt reduction drive for HIPC and you say its only the Iraq case he showed conviction, the economy u think it was by mistake or an issue of acting infavour or against character, it was pursuing policies that he was convicted on.

No matter how hard you try you cannot take away the economic success from the Blair government and since u agree infavour of the one issue that paints his government bad then you are actually idolising the guy making him more of a success.

Blair was a master of spin whose tendency to twist the truth undermined confidence in him.Hence,on the rare occasion he acted with conviction,few believed him.He has to a large degree,single-handedly eroded trust in the political class.

I do not attribute the economic success to him for he had nothing to do with it.The economy was growing rapidly when he came into power.He could not be the cause of an effect(economic growth) which preceded him.In any case,Brown,not Blair,has greater responsibility for economic policy.

I wonder what the point of a relationship is,if its success or failure is dependent on one partner's oratorical skills.

buluti:
@ I-man,
First lets clarify issues, council tax is not set by the prime minister it is set by individual councils, so please Tony Blair should not be blamed for high council Tax, talk to your councilor.

Tony Blair was also the head of the Labor party and in councils controlled by the Labor party,Council tax inflation was higher than that of the councils controlled by Tories

On the issue of taxation i quite share the frustration, broadly speaking its a Labour policy to attempt to redistribute wealth by taxing high income earners more than low income earners in a bid to generate revenue to provide services that ordinary the low income bracket cannot provide for themselves. The ideology is an egalitarian society, but please note that they (Tony Blair himself) are also taxed at these high rates as well.

So once your income starts growing particularly getting to the 40K a yr bracket you will definately frown. My point is that Tony Blair cannot be blamed it is the policy of his party, its what he promised to do, so if the voters voted Labour perhaps thats the policy the people want.

Labor didn't campaign on the platform of "wealth redistribution".Labor specifically was carefull not to be associated with such a platform,since this was perceived as partly responsible for Labor's woes in the 1980s.

However,even if Blair promised to raise taxes on the wealthy,I still think its a flawed idea.The higher taxes go up on the rich,the less the rich pay as proportion to the entire populace.Tax evasion actually skyrockets and we will be back to the situation we were in the 70s when the top rate of income tax was 90%.

On the issue of the EU i can see that you have been listening to the shallow arguement of the opposition. My question to you is should Britain be part of the EU or not? Then if you are in the EU to what extent do you loose your sovereignty and at the same time being part of the block. UK has tried to maintain that balance, whether thanks to Brown or not, it is the same government, at least he listened to Brown, he should be given credit for that. No wonder conservative govts are usually not a success, you isolate yourselves and expect what??

I don't think Britain has to be part of the EU.Switzerland and Norway are doing quite well without the EU.Did you say Conservative Govts were not a success?You should ask people how Britain was in the 70s.They were actually taking IMF loans then.

In cutting the size of the military. What has been the strategy? The idea unfortunately American grown is to have a smaller, swifter more equipped and better trained military. So the arguement now is being in so many conflicts at the same time has the home land become more vulnerable, But how vulnerable is the Home Land?? Come to think of it, those clamouring for a large military are the conservatives, defense budget are usually huge, juicy contracts of equipping a LARGE military are awarded, which they will argue should be equipped and trained at the smaller level of the smaill military, can you imagine the cost.

If they can't afford the cost of a larger military,they should reduce foreign deployments.If you are going to be deploying troops in an unprecedented manner,you should at least have sufficient number of troops to carry out the tasks neccesary.

I totally disagree with you on your last statement that Tony Blairs failures are innumerable rather his success are innumerable again it depends on what policies you believe in and what ideology you lean towards. How can you say he has failed when he has delivered the best economy, the NHS you say is in a mess but the tragedy of long waiting lists are over, the health sector recorded the best boom ever, Nurses salaries were increased like no other govt.

He didn't "deliver" the best economy.The economy was booming at the time Labor came into power.I only give him credit for not totally ruining the economy.The three fold increase in spending on the NHS has not brought about commensurate progress in the health sector.Its not how much is spent but how its spent.Turkey has a better health service than the UK despite spending far less money.Are you aware that you are 4 times as likely to die if major surgery is conducted under the NHS than if such surgery was conducted in the US?-[url]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,,1036970,00.html[/url]Thank God for BUPA.

The irony is that its the Iraq issue that many have painted him bad that you support.

On Iraq he acted against character,for the first time he acted on conviction.

Tornadoz:
@denex
At the beginning my primary objective (as a Nigerian Catholic) was to learn more about these issues, and to teach other young Nigerians about the intransigent and belligerent Israelis,  I failed on both counts.

Okay. . .at the beginning you adopted the position that the Israelis were the intransigent and belligerent ones.Having, as you admit,adopted that position at the beginning,there was no way you could have looked at the issue objectively.No wonder you have no problem relying on Neo-Nazis to make your point.

denex:
Don't forget that the N600,000 per day is apart from the Iraqi Oil money that him and Bush are making.

Where is your source for the "Iraqi Oil money" he and Bush are making? You pluck "facts" out of the air.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair.Under him,taxes have remained high ,both income and Corporation.The death tax-Inheritance tax-remains high also, not to mention,Council Tax.We have been taxed to the high heavens to fund the expansion of a nanny state.

More than 50% of British residents either work for the Govt or are on benefits.No wonder the Left-Labour and the Lib Dems remain popular.Blair has failed to adequately defend Britain's interest in Europe.He tried to drag Briatin into the Euro but for Gordon Brown's intervention.

He has cut the size of the military significantly.This is incredible given the scale of deployments Blair has ordered.The NHS remains a mess despite the unprecedented amounts of money lavished on it.

His failures are quite frankly innumerable.It is only in certain areas of foreign policy-Northern Ireland,Iraq and Afghanistan- that I agree with him.

Ladies first When all the ladies are done,I will put mine.I promise

I heard Bernd Schuster of Getafe is the most likely replacement.Wenger has the good sense not to give up the job security he has at Arsenal for the thankless task of managing Madrid

Apart from one Blues Fan,na wowoness full this thread Na Muki and J-Girl I dey wait for,I never see their picture.Viee and Imani as well.

Too many wowo pictures for this thread sha

[b]Real are expected to announce at lunchtime today that they are to replace Fabio Capello, the coach, even though he has just brought them their first league title in four years. And it would not be the first time that a coach has delivered the club a trophy and then been shown the door.

Relations between Capello and Ramón Calderón, the club president, are reportedly strained and it is widely believed that Bernd Schuster, the Getafe coach and a former Real player, has been lined up as a replacement. The announcement of Capello’s departure, and a likely payoff of one of the two remaining years of his contract, would have been made on Monday, but for the celebrations of the championship secured by the club’s basketball team.

In January, Calderón pleaded with Capello to stay after the Italian coach tendered his resignation, but there have since been clashes – for example, when Calderón overruled Capello when he wanted to drop Iker Casillas, the Spain goalkeeper, after a defeat by Racing Santander.[/b]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article1996552.ece

kitaun:
BTW, whats the latest on Deco

It seems Barca are willing to offload Deco in exchange for Lampard

[b]From being the most aggressive club in the transfer market in recent seasons, Chelsea will find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to fight off bids for Frank Lampard, one of their most influential performers, over the coming weeks. Barcelona are determined to take the England midfield player to the Nou Camp and will test José Mourinho’s resolve with a £15 million bid.

The Catalan club have made it their priority to sign Lampard after deciding that Deco is surplus to requirements. Barcelona have signalled their intentions to regain the Spanish title and Champions League next season by signing Thierry Henry, the forward, for £16.2 million from Arsenal and Yaya Touré, the midfield player, for £6 million from AS Monaco.

Despite Lampard’s status at Stamford Bridge, Barcelona are optimistic that Chelsea will listen to their offer because Lampard has only two years remaining on his contract. They hope to finance the deal by offloading Deco to Inter Milan. However, there remains the intriguing possibility that Barcelona will offer Chelsea the Portugal midfield player in a swap-plus-cash deal.

Deco rose to prominence at the hub of Mourinho’s FC Porto team, who won the Champions League three years ago and the Portuguese coach has praised his former player on a number of occasions.[/b]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premiership/chelsea/article1996697.ece

@Tornadoz

I dey enjoy your posts,na why I dey quote you Oya,run away before the guy wey go chop akpu go come back

Mukina is Man Utd's next signing .Its a free transfer