Verdict: Howard

Diabolical. Blair doesn't know how many immigrants are already here and Howard doesn't know how many they'd allow in. Paxman was loving every second of it, clearly. A word to the wise, Michael: "people", "example" and "ample" are not the best words to enable you to come across well on TV. If he gets in on May 5th then I'm moving into Phil Collins' vacated abode.


Err, did you make a cup tea at some point? Howard said the numbers would be less than currently and that he thought it would be less than the estimated 150,000 officially allowed in by Labour. The CBI boss of bosses disagrees, Digby Jones thinks the same as this son of immigrants - we need able workers, we don't need welfare funded immigrants. So let 'em all come - for work, not welfare. Some countries demand that you bring an amount of cash and a ticket home if you want a work permit. Why not here? Why can't genuine refugees get work permits? I don't understand why they are not allowed to work, many want to work and they should be allowed to do so.

Mrs Fawkes was horrified by Howard's pledge to tear up the UN Refugee Convention, but even Blair himself said that it is outdated.

I don't think they'd let you in to Switzerland.


So you thought it was a good performance from Howard? I'm not disputing that willingness to work is a pre-requisite but under Howard's proposals it's not an issue. You can't argue with maths. Blair expressed an opinion on it with the scope for reform. Howard simply proposed to withdraw, which would rank the UK alongside such tolerant and democratic regimes as Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

My residency will not be an issue on May 6 as Howard has as much chance of becoming Prime Minister as I have of been elected the next Pope (and besides it's EEA, but that's not the point...).


I think Paxo rattled Blair and Kennedy much more than Howard. The truth is that is that many so-called refugees are actually economic migrants. I don't have a problem with that. "You can't argue with maths." What are you talking about? I'd like to argue it, but I have no idea what you are saying.

Woy Jenkins took the same view as Howard does today thirty years ago. What has changed?


Well, of course. Kennedy has much to be rattled about and Blair is quite flappable as he remains incredulous as to why anyone could see the world differently from him. Howard took it in his stride as he's been there before and even tried to turn the tables on Paxman at one point. My point about maths was the once an upper limit was fixed, genuine refugees would be turned away because a numerical upper limit was in place. My stance on immigration is not only concerned with people fleeing regimes but also people fleeing poverty, so your point about economic migrants means nothing to me. There is a case for relaxed immigration controls on humane grounds but more practically it would also allow for more focused efforts on tackling the inter-related worlds of drug-related crime and the sex traffic trade. In many cases the police simply don't know who's here being exploited or doing the exploiting. So both Howard and Blair are being driven into a cul-de-sac.

Getting back to Howard's performance, pieces of paper: what was that all about? Who cares what Roy Jenkins said 30 years ago? We're talking about now. To me it just showed someone grasping for justification from elsewhere as he knows his party is now more associated with the BNP's new-found mantra of "They're thinking what we're thinking".