Fitting the battle of life

Well, I wasn’t expecting that. I decided - because I’m sad and geeky like that - to check what OS each of the main parties in the UK (Tories, Labour and Lib Dems) is running their website on, using netcraft. The results are:

Tories - NetBSD/OpenBSD

Labour - Linux

Lib Dems -  Windows Server 2003

Turns out the party who claim to most stand up for people’s freedoms, that party that claims the moral highground on civil liberties and ID cards and so on is running the proprietary software…

[The Greens run Linux]

Well it was a great debate this week, with Mark Clarke of Conservative Future and one of our ex-Presidents, Tarit Mukherjee, proposing the motion against Jo Shaw (the Lib Dem candidate for Holborn and St Pancras in the next election) and Lembit Opik MP (yes, the cheeky girl one; it actually took about an hour for anyone to mention it, surprisingly).

The following notes are my own, from what I managed to scribble down. I did not make notes on floor speeches or closing summary speeches; the port was taking its toll.

Prop Arguments

• Prop’s case was based on statistical evidence that the UK is overcrowded, with a population density twice that of Germany and 4x that of France, and a population that’s growing.
• Immigration is the only factor that we can control - fertility and higher life expectancy aren’t something we can deal with!
• Returning ex-pats, refugees and EU citizens can’t be controlled for various reasons, so we must look at those from the rest of the world, economic migrants.
• Immigration takes a toll on public services as it is happens faster at the moment that we have time to plan for (e.g. a new hospital to cope with increased population takes 5 years, a new tube line 10 years)
• It was pointed out that the Tories aren’t racist.
• Having quotas means that migrants know that there is a job waiting for them, public services they can use, and education for their children.
• The worst case scenario, as we have now, is that people turn up not knowing if they have a sustainable job or not, and so put a great burden on us.
• Quotas permit planning ahead effectively.
• Quotas are also a tool of integration, as they demonstrate that we do want those immigrating under a quota scheme in the country, increasing their self-worth and sending a message to the wider community that they should be made welcome because there is a demonstrable need for them.
• The Lib Dems’ own policy on immigration was rubbished.

Opp

•  Prop offered no details: what jobs, in what numbers, what about those who need to come to the UK for other reasons (family reasons were mentioned), and how would it be enforced?
• There must be a cut-off point and that is unfair; harms will result to someone as a result of turning them away.
• The Home Office is already rubbish at keeping track of numbers.
• Targets and numbers are the wrong way to deal with the problems associated with immigration.
• The history of Britain has set up a proudly liberal tradition in this area.
• The net benefit of immigration is £2.5billion per annum, and there are far more diverse benefits to be had as well.
• The country isn’t really overpopulated at all; statistics mean nothing.
• Population shouldn’t be controlled artificially; money is the best control as rich people have fewer children.
• This Tory policy is an unnecessary intervention in the free market: are they really Socialists posing as Tories or what?!
• It is impossible to work out how many people it will be necessary to let in; you cannot predict the future.
• Immigrants don’t come if they don’t think they’ll have a job at the moment anyway.
• If you support quotas as proposed you must support the forced removal of economic migrants when they’re no longer needed as well.

The vote was won by the Opposition by a large margin.

The floor prize was jointly awarded to Cormac and to Ruth.