Poll: Who Will You Be Voting For In The Next General Election?

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The Home Office did a big one at the start of the decade, and the ramifications are still being felt today.

As Carnwath LJ stated in the Court of Appeal:

On 1 January 2001 a new factor came into play. A "Public Service Agreement" (PSA) between the Home Office and the Treasury set a target requiring that 60% of applications lodged on or after 1 January 2001 should be decided within 60 days.

In order to meet the target, the Home Office decided to ignore all older asylum cases and only to decide new ones. The Court of Appeal decided this was an unlawful application of policy:

It is clear from Dr Mclean's evidence (as it has been from many cases coming before the courts) that the government was faced with a crisis in 2001, and it needed to take drastic measures to deal with it. Had those measures been based on a principled assessment of the issues and implications, no legal complaint could have been made. However, Dr McLean, fairly and frankly, makes no attempt to justify the decision in that way. On his evidence, the postponement of the old applications was an arbitrary decision, dictated only by the perceived need to meet the targets for dealing with new applications laid down by the agreement with the Treasury. In my view, that was unlawful, and (if it is necessary so to hold) an abuse of power.

I know of a (recent) echo of this - someone's job application to the BIA that was the most ridiculous process - involving, amongst other things, rushing to interview everyone before the preliminary screening, so that they could hit the interview target in time. They then got screened later, and finally had a competence test, at which they were told they would be successful, but needed to jump through the hoops. (if memory serves me right). Just one of a vast number of bizarre events. Whole process took about 6 months. Surprisingly, lots of applicants had found other jobs (not least because there was no way they could inquire as to how their application was being processed).

PS- for all those Private Eye readers, the process was outsourced to C*apita.

1sue23

Communist.

nickmason

1sue23 wrote: »

Communist.

I thought that was an insult, until I remembered to check what the thread topic was. Doh

Snooze

Imho they're all as bad as each other. They all know how to talk the talk and somehow convince the majority that they're the best and everything will be hunkydory when they get in but once they're in all those promises quickly go out of the window and into force come their own stupid agendas - and for those reasons that is why I don't vote.

However... Labour have !!!!ed me off that much with all their newly introduced Big Brother rules and regs that this time I will be getting off my !!!! and actually placing a vote. And it will be for the Tories. Not because I want the Tories to get back in (although if they scrap the ID card like they promise then it would be worth it for that alone) but more because I want to make sure Labour don't get in again and let's face it, the Tories are the only party that have any chance of winning.

Rob

pickledpink

A lot of Labour people don't vote because they're on incapacity benefit and can't walk to the polling station.:rotfl:

mewbie_2

pickledpink wrote: »

A lot of Labour people don't vote because they're on incapacity benefit and can't walk to the polling station.:rotfl:

That's terrible. But could they not get a postal vote instead?

nickmason

pickledpink wrote: »

A lot of Labour people don't vote because they're on incapacity benefit and can't walk to the polling station.:rotfl:

As opposed to lib-dems who are on incapacity benefit and can walk to polling station. Damnit, they're the b*****y candidate!




PS - told for comedy value, rather than as a serious slight on LDs. All parties have bad-eggs; I read that story on here thinking "oh god I hope it's not one of our lot..."

fitpig

nickmason wrote: »

As opposed to lib-dems who are on incapacity benefit and can walk to polling station. Damnit, they're the b*****y candidate!




PS - told for comedy value, rather than as a serious slight on LDs. All parties have bad-eggs; I read that story on here thinking "oh god I hope it's not one of our lot..."

The one you're referring to didn't walk - he waddled.

pickledpink

So it appears Labour will be OUT in the next election!!

What a surprise!!!!:rotfl:

stevetodd

sweetpee wrote: »

We have a government who lie and cheat.

And the tories are different? (I didn't take part in the poll because I haven't made my mind up yet)