The May election

[antongould]

Cheers S_A I have so much iplayer I need to watch/listen to and so little time. Any move by the BEEB to allow permanent downloads?

[Serial_Apologist]

The Super-Rich and Us

Cheers S_A I have so much iplayer I need to watch/listen to and so little time. Any move by the BEEB to allow permanent downloads?

. No idea I'm afraid, anton. Just to remind that the second part of this tremendous two-parter comes on at 9 pm tonight (Thurs 15th) on BBC2.

[ahinton]

I hear that the Greens are now said to have more members than UKIP and that their tally is not far behind that of the LibDems, so perhaps Dave's insistence on declining a TV appearance might be seen to be vindicated; whatever else one might say about Dave, I do agree with him that the Greens should be granted an appearance and so perhaps they will be now.

[P. G. Tipps]

I just love all this election stuff even though I'm determinedly non-aligned ....

Can't understand why some members complain so much about being bored by it all ... they can always retreat to a few months of Brahms instead...

[Beef Oven!]

. No idea I'm afraid, anton. Just to remind that the second part of this tremendous two-parter comes on at 9 pm tonight (Thurs 15th) on BBC2.

I enjoyed part 1 and will watch part 2 on the iPlayer because I'm going to the cinema in a minute.

It can hardly be described as tremendous! It's quite poor in places and superficial. However, I am coming around to the view that trickle down isn't working, and it's nice to have it set out so simply.

And btw, thanks for pointing out the programme last week, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

[ucanseetheend]

change can hardly come about unless and until there is a majority government

A joke of course

[ahinton]

A joke of course

Far from it; for the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest that change would come about just because there is a majority government!

Anyway, anyone's doubts about which part to vote for in the said election will surely be brushed away by reading http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...s-ukip-leaflet ; claimants must leave their vehicles in the Farage, presumably. It seems that the perpetrator of this bizarre notion has not thought that, were it to become government policy, it would mean that almost all people must be banned from driving upon reaching state retirement age (other than the tiny minority unentitled to receive or choosing to defer state retirement benefit); just imagine a police officer stopping a vehicle and saying to its driver "can I see your licence, insurance and birth certificate?" Likewise, it takes no account of people who are nowhere near a bus service and is coy about how benefits claimants who are not in work (which is by no means all of them) are supposed to get any while banned from driving.

You couldn't make it up, could you?...

[Beef Oven!]

Far from it; for the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest that change would come about just because there is a majority government!

Anyway, anyone's doubts about which part to vote for in the said election will surely be brushed away by reading http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...s-ukip-leaflet ; claimants must leave their vehicles in the Farage, presumably. It seems that the perpetrator of this bizarre notion has not thought that, were it to become government policy, it would mean that almost all people must be banned from driving upon reaching state retirement age (other than the tiny minority unentitled to receive or choosing to defer state retirement benefit); just imagine a police officer stopping a vehicle and saying to its driver "can I see your licence, insurance and birth certificate?" Likewise, it takes no account of people who are nowhere near a bus service and is coy about how benefits claimants who are not in work (which is by no means all of them) are supposed to get any while banned from driving.

You couldn't make it up, could you?...

We all know that The Guardian has degenerated into nothing more than a polemical grand-pamphlet for the faux-left and the liberal metroplitan elite, so we must expect it to run non-stories like this.

I don't think that you are right when you say that what is contained in the article will brush away any doubts as to which party to vote for, i.e. not the UKIP.

I think there are lots of reasons why people will be voting for the UKIP. You can't stop yourself talking about the UKIP! I guess they would say that any publicity is good publicity!

Your obsession with the UKIP won't go away, will it?

P.S. Is your post outside of the bounds of the recent house rules change on political parties and the election?

If not, I'll answer your assertion with a link to some reasons why I think people should still vote for the UKIP, to counter what you say.

[ahinton]

We all know that The Guardian has degenerated into nothing more than a polemical grand-pamphlet for the faux-left and the liberal metroplitan elite, so we must expect it to run non-stories like this.

I do not believe that "we all" know, or even assume, anything of the kind and indeed I know that there are those who do not; the questions as to the constitution, membership or very definition of this "faux-left" have already been extensively run without any obvious agreement about these things arising therefrom but, unless the story - a non-story indeed insofar as it goes - is actually false (in which case someone would be reaching for a lawyer), it would seem less than unreasonable for it to be run somewhere and could as easily have been run in The Daily Telegraph.

I don't think that you are right when you say that what is contained in the article will brush away any doubts as to which party to vote for, i.e. not the UKIP.

I might not be, but it remains hard to see what favours such stories are likely to do to the party concerned, even though the Guardian did clearly and fairly state that the subject of the report does not form part of that party's official policy nor is it expected to become so; that said, it is likely to be taken by some readers as par for the course given certain other embarrassing statements in the recent past.

I think there are lots of reasons why people will be voting for the UKIP. You can't stop yourself talking about the UKIP! I guess they would say that any publicity is good publicity!

They could and can say what they like provided that it doesn't contravene the law, but it was the Guardian that talked about that party, not me. Those who do decide to vote for that party at the May General Election will presumably think that they know why they're doing so - fair comment - although I take leave to doubt that the party's officials will likely consider the Guardian piece as "good publicity".

Your obsession with the UKIP won't go away, will it?

I'm glad that you asked the question because it gives me an opportunity to deny that I have any such obsession with it or indeed any other political party as well as to reiterate that the Guardian published this piece, not me (although, as someone who doesn't habitually read that paper, I should perhaps point out that I first heard about it this morning courtesy of that other well-known bastion of faux-left / liberal metropolitan élite commonly known as BBC Radio 4).

P.S. Is your post outside of the bounds of the recent house rules change on political parties and the election?

I do not know and it's not for me to speculate; you'd have to put that question to FF who's the person best qualified to answer it; that said, the entire thread has now, at her behest, become a diversion, in which fact you might find at least part of the answer that you seek.

If not, I'll answer your assertion with a link to some reasons why I think people should still vote for the UKIP, to counter what you say.

I "asserted" nothing; I merely quoted a journalistic source that I have no evidence is scurrilously incorrect and observed that what it reported is unlikely to do the party concerned any favours. This is in any case about what a particular person is reported as having said about benefits recipients and driving bans and the reactions thereto (a goodly number of which are published beneath its online version), not what you or anyone else might think about why people should or should not, or will or will not, vote for the party concerned in May.

That said, what do you think about that? and, in answering this question (should you feel disposed to do so), it would be helpful were you to clarify your particular thoughts about how such a policy (were it ever to become one) could ever be policed.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I've only skimmed the last few pages of this thread (I'm envious - how do you folks find the time to compose and (check for sniper proof expression) this amount of discussion - perhaps you are word perfect touch typists?)

So apologies if this has already been mentioned but prog 1 of the Peretti programme is being repeated on BBC 2 tonight at 11.20pm.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Today, the Conservative candidate for the Thirsk and Malton constituency was doing the rounds in Filey, along with two co-workers. I was impressed by their willingness to listen. Frau Alpensinfonie invited them in and entered into a long discussion with them.

[Anna]

Lucky you, I wasn't canvassed at all in the last election and haven't heard a peep from our current MP to date, or the opponents. I'd really love to have someone on my doorstep, and yes, whatever party, I'd invite them in.

To be honest, all these promises coming out from various Party HQs - one has to think 'well, he would say that, wouldn't he just to get a vote'. But, I never not vote, how people like Mr. R. Brand advocate just sitting on your hands leads on to to the saying that people get the government they deserve .... just seems so obvious.