I am looking forward to the final debate between the three leaders tonight on BBC1.
Follow me on twitter @chrisLibDemNW1 where I will be commenting throughout the night on the performance of all three.

A great new website for the Lib Dems.

You can choose snippets of speeches from the leaders of all three main political parties and compose your own personalised manifesto.

I spent the last hour trying to use all the words available for Brown and Cameron in one speech – it’s not possible, but it is a fun way to spend some free time and you will laugh!

(source www.globalvisas.com) April 20 2010 by Niall J Rice

Since Nick Cleggs remarkable rise to the top of most YouGov polls courtesy of the live TV debate shown last week, certain media outlets have started to delve deeper into the party’s policies and proposals if they did in fact win the general election.

This has brought about, unsurprisingly, condemnation from most right-wing publications that feel this usurping of the electorate to be unfair to their political allegiances. Writing in the Daily Mail today Leo McKinstry has let off a barrage of criticisms aimed at the political party’s immigration policy

The feeling he levies at the newly popular Lib Dems is that their idea’s about UK visas and an amnesty on illegal immigrants living here for more than 10 years are as disastrous as Labour’s ‘open borders’ strategy of the last decade.

“The truth is that, once granted, an amnesty would act as a magnet for migrants from all over the world.”

This view is however, interestingly, not shared by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. The floppy haired Conservative has said that he believes an amnesty on immigrants through earned citizenship would be an excellent idea.

This both sides agree would be based on factors such as amount of time living in the UK, no criminal record and proof that they contribute to the society in which they live.

So while it appears the national newspapers that are clearly in favour of a Conservative government, feel that the Tories and Lib Dems are miles apart in terms of a strategy for UK immigration. The coming together of idea’s from the London Mayor and the Liberal Democrat leader serves as an indication that they are not as crazy as is being goaded.

Cameron has been yet again, following the scandal with Chris Grayling, been placed in an embarrassing and untenable position by another of his front bench shadow cabinet members. This time it is Dr Julian Lewis, shadow minster for Defence and Tory candidate for New Forest East (Hampshire) who reportedly wrote to a constituent stating that he’d been ‘very strongly against’ lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16.

Dr Lewis (and it is important to point out that the use of Dr is questionable as I understand he holds a DPhil in Strategic Studies he DOES NOT hold a medical degree and his arguments seem to be coming from a medical bias) was reported in the Independent (22.04.10) as saying that ‘anyone 16-18 who had unprotected gay sex was at risk’. I hate to point out Mr Lewis (sorry I cannot use the title Dr as I do not consider you have earned the right to use this), but anyone who has unprotected sex (gay or straight) runs the risk of HIV. They also run the risk of a list of other sexually transmitted infections which you have failed to mention, and for sake of brevity I will not list here, needless to say there is a long list. And, do you suggest that if a person is aged OVER 18, and they have unprotected sex, there is a lower risk of infection from this myriad of infections? Hmm, I did not think so…. So back to his interview in the Independent.

Mr Lewis is reported that in a letter he wrote recently, he stated that ‘There is a seriously increased risk of infection arising from male homosexual activity…’ I suggest that you actually research this subject before launching into a tirade of anti-gay diatribe. According to the THT, 38% of new HIV diagnoses in 2008 were among men who have sex with men. That means 62% of the infections during this period where from other sources (simple maths)  which DOES NOT equate to a ‘seriously increased risk’ as I nor any other rational person would see it. According to the Health Protection Agency figures for 2008, 4,200 cases where attributable to heterosexual contact as opposed to 2,830 for sex between men.

Mr Lewis has continually voted against gay rights legislation and was in fact involved in the battle against the repeal of Section 28. He also voted against adoption by gay couples, but conversely, voted in favour of Civil Partnerships. In the same letter, he claimed that he has many gay friends but wanted to avoid the cliches that where associated with this statement (so why make it?).

Interestingly, Google shows up some interesting results when doing a search of his name. Directly you to wikipedia, you will read the following:

In 1976, with secret funding from the Freedom Association, he posed as a Labour Party moderate and briefly won control of Newham North East Constituency Labour Party, in an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the deselection of the local MP, Reg Prentice.

Fascinating! This gives us an idea as to where his political and other morals are stored (clue: think below sewer level).

David Cameron has YET AGAIN failed to react to this and is still out there trying to win the LGBT vote. It is very clear that whilst Cameron is out there trying to win the gay vote, there are a number of front bench (and more than likely a large number of back benchers) who are opposed to any form of equality.

Alan Johnson, Home Secretary called for Cameron to sack Lewis, citing that:

…claim that the Conservative Party represents change is to be nothing more than a shallow public relations exercise

…(shadow) frontbench team includes people who are evidently against any notion of homosexual equality

Come On Mr Cameron. Face it, you have a shadow frontbech singing a different hymn to you – not only a different hymn, but one from a totally different book. You want us to believe you offer us change? You and the Tory party are no different to that of 10 years ago, 15 years ago… Your party represents all that is wrong when it comes to sexual equality. Your party has an appalling track record when voting for sexual equality legislation. You cannot control your frontbench.

You have done nothing to stop the rise of homophobia across Europe (and yes, you had the chance) so why should you even get a chance here?