Anybody any idea who's going to form the next government ?...

it seems to me it should be quite easy to save a great deal of money by just cutting
out a lot of unnecessary labour expenditure
quangos as well

here is a list of govt depts; take your pick
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/dl1/directories/a-zofcentralgovernment/index.htm

Politicians popping up all over the place in the next few days....promises, baby kissing, the lot in the next few days.....yuck....

Camelot, apparently around 85billion pounds a year is spent on quangos, so there has to be savings to be made within a budget that size.
2517

RF , they really all look the same

Wonderful active cartoon Camelot,....amazing....

(Reuters) - Gordon Brown is the worst leader Britain has ever had, an election candidate standing for Brown's own Labour Party said on Tuesday.

strictly against Labour party rules

I am beginning to think they are running scared of what the Tories will find when they can examine Gordons books

a sleight of hand here, a lie there and PFI everywhere


Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said Labour voters in specific districts where the party's candidate had no chance of winning should "vote with their heads, not their hearts", even if that meant backing a Liberal Democrat to keep a Conservative out.

Paddy Power has paid out already on all bets on the Tories to win the most seats in the election.

my view is that cons will get in with a small overall majority probably <10

Brown's last desperate throw of the dice urging all voters to vote against the tories in marginal seats where the tories look possible winners.

Well, I hope that being on the brink of a new government will hope the markets....what a dive today.....

best you can hope for tomorrow is steady status quo

who's going to win ?.

How much is true about migrants adding votes to the LABOUR party?
I would not trust GB on doing that, neither on the large debt of the country or give in to the single mothers for this case.

The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor - Published: 10:00PM GMT 09 Feb 2010

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour Photo: PA The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labours migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the countrys economic needs, but also the Governments social objectives.

The paper said migration would enhance economic growth and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be economically damaging. But it also stated that immigration had general benefits and that a new policy framework was needed to maximise the contribution of migration to the Governments wider social aims.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to social exclusion.

Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.

The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural.

However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to social objectives had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.

Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the race card. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.

Gordon Brown pledged to secure British jobs for British workers as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was not racist to discuss the issue.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title Migration: an economic and social analysis but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to social objectives.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Governments economic and social objectives was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and rub the Rights nose in diversity, had been correct in his account of Labours immigration policy.

Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain, he said. Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?

Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, accused the Government of having a secret policy. This shows that Labours open-door immigration policy was deliberate, and ministers should apologise, he said. This makes it all the more important that there is a proper independent inquiry in the origins of this policy and whether ministers have been deceiving people.

Jack Straw, who was home secretary when the paper was drawn up, has adamantly denied any secret plot and insisted that he had been tough on immigration.

Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said the policy changes introduced in the 1997-2001 Parliament toughened immigration rules. The reports confirm there is no evidence to back the idea there was an open-door policy, he said. The Government was criticised at the time for tightening the policy.

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will announce today moves to make it harder to earn citizenship.

what a load of crap ..... the paper referred to was written 10 years ago!
this sort of nonsense relies on most peeps inability to read beyond the headline

cynic of course immigrants legal or otherwise will vote labour they dont bite the hand that feeds them.

from where did you glean that garbage? ..... your mother's lap?
if they're illegal, they can't vote anyway; many immigrants (and others) will not vote because they can't be bothered or some other reason; does your catch-all also include those immigrants who came in several decades ago?; does your same logic apply to immigrants who came in under previous tory governments?

They are all the same, looking for ruling the country.

None of them addressed isues we are facing in pactical term, just talking talks.

NHS is being misused by many foreigners from Europe and Asia. They get free treatment, some costly like cancer and Aids, in the UK but we have to have private insurance if we travel or work in any country in the world. Why should we pay for foreigners to get treated here?

and many other issues like this.

private insurance if we trevel or work in any country in the world.
certainly not true if you travel within eu, nor probably if working
if travelling further afield, then for sure take insurance if you do not already have - and what's wrong with that?


They are all the same, looking for ruling the country.
and what else would expect any political party anywhere in the world to be seeking?

cynic we seem to have hit a nerve with you. Of course illegal immigrants can vote all they need is an address and lie about their nationality.

i just get seriously fed up with some of the stupid comment and assertions ...... it reminds me of some of the truly unbelievably bizarre nonsense and blind prejudices i have heard during the course of my life

i rather forlornly hoped that the peeps who inhabit these boards were rather more educated and thoughtful

i also have my doubts that you are correct about the ease of registering on the electoral roll ..... if you are indeed correct, then (a) few illegals would have the remotest interest and (b) they would be justifiably nervous of the trouble that would likely follow if they did enrol