Not like the rest at all ?

[Richard Barrett]

Mr Farage clearly has a sense of humour

Indeed, inspired by the late Bernard Manning no doubt.

[ahinton]

Oh come on!

Mr Farage clearly has a sense of humour and he was merely giving a silly answer to a silly question! (the clue is in his laughter).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570

Though his anti-EU politics are downright daft, imv, his utter refusal to pander to the suffocating straight-jacket of political-correctness is like a sudden cool blast amongst all the stale hot air!

He certainly made me chuckle with that one.<laugh>

Well, it certainly wouldn't do for us all to have the same sense of humour (or what passes for it) but, whatever anyone might think of NF's answer, I don't see what was supposedly silly about the question in the first place. Some £2.5K had been splashed out on tickets to hear him give his address (presumably not in Welsh) and it would seem that whoever might have been responsible for planning his journey there didn't do his/her/their job properly. If NF's answer was supposed to be a joke, would you not think that a serious answer would also not have come amiss, given that he let some 100 people down? Perhaps there's a reason that he didn't care to admit, such as an unspoken view of the Welsh as bloomin' furriners who come over the two Severn bridges taking all our jobs and all that...

[Beef Oven!]

Well, it certainly wouldn't do for us all to have the same sense of humour (or what passes for it) but, whatever anyone might think of NF's answer, I don't see what was supposedly silly about the question in the first place. Some £2.5K had been splashed out on tickets to hear him give his address (presumably not in Welsh) and it would seem that whoever might have been responsible for planning his journey there didn't do his/her/their job properly. If NF's answer was supposed to be a joke, would you not think that a serious answer would also not have come amiss, given that he let some 100 people down? Perhaps there's a reason that he didn't care to admit, such as an unspoken view of the Welsh as bloomin' furriners who come over the two Severn bridges taking all our jobs and all that...

NF's comment was so tongue in cheek. But I don't think NF should have said what he said.

NF and people like us will not believe that the current out-of-control immigration is the cause of car-jams, but less thinking people might. In short, whatever NF's frustrations about a 6.5 hour car journey are, NF shouldn't have said it (even though NF can be quite funny sometimes).
'Nuff said.

[ahinton]

NF's comment was so tongue in cheek.

To the extent that he fails sufficiently to guard his tongue and has a cheek to utter some of what he does, I'd be inclined to agree.

But I don't think NF should have said what he said.

I certainly agree with you there.

NF and people like us will not believe that the current out-of-control immigration is the cause of car-jams, but less thinking people might.

I've yet to encounter or hear/read about any people, however much or little they may "think", who genuinely believes traffic congestion to be down to "out-of-control immigration".

In short, whatever NF's frustrations about a 6.5 hour car journey are, NF shouldn't have said it (even though NF can be quite funny sometimes).

I've yet to hear him utter anything funny.

'Nuff said.

No; don't you think that he ought also to have given a genuine reason for his delay, at the very least to those 100 or so people who were prepared to outlay £25 + travelling expenses and some of their time to hear him?

[Richard Barrett]

NF and people like us will not believe that the current out-of-control immigration is the cause of car-jams, but less thinking people might.

Which is precisely why he said it. "Less thinking people" are exactly the constituency he's trying to appeal to.

[Beef Oven!]

Which is precisely why he said it. "Less thinking people" are exactly the constituency he's trying to appeal to.

He, and his party, are trying to appeal to all segments of the electorate, and it seems he, and his party, are having a fair measure of success.

[ahinton]

He, and his party, are trying to appeal to all segments of the electorate, and it seems he, and his party, are having a fair measure of success.

By what particular evidence do you judge this "fair measure of success"? He and his party might be having some with some people - I don't doubt that - but ultimately the outcome of their efforts is likely to be little more than another spanner in the electoral works (not that this will of itself be unimportant).

I don't imagine that he's having overmuch "success" with the goodly folk of Castell-nedd right now...

[Richard Barrett]

He, and his party, are trying to appeal to all segments of the electorate

Not much chance of that then... seeing as they appeal mostly to middle-aged and older white men.

[Beef Oven!]

Not much chance of that then... seeing as they appeal mostly to middle-aged and older white men.

Mostly.

[ahinton]

Mostly.

Which leaves out rather a high proportion of the UK population as a whole, wouldn't you say?

[Beef Oven!]

Which leaves out rather a high proportion of the UK population as a whole, wouldn't you say?

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[Richard Barrett]

UKIP's attempt to appeal to "all segments of the electorate" seems to be pulling them into a trainwreck of policy contradictions. From the Statesman:

The party's lack of consistency on the NHS is a particularly sore subject, following the revelation around the time of last month's by-election of Nigel Farage's enthusiasm back in 2012 for an insurance-based system run by private companies. As his party is now openly attempting to pick up Labour voters, Farage's former thoughts on NHS funding are damaging. So much so that he had to hastily insist that he would keep the NHS free at the point of use, without handing control over to "faceless private-sector companies".

But it's clear confusion about its approach to the health service endures among Ukip's high command. Writing in a column in the Express, Ukip deputy chairman Neil Hamilton suggests he would like to see more NHS outsourcing. He refers to "hopeless public sector procurement practices" compared to the efficiency of running a business in the private sector, and decries the "bloated budget" of the NHS.

[Beef Oven!]

UKIP's attempt to appeal to "all segments of the electorate" seems to be pulling them into a trainwreck of policy contradictions. From the Statesman:

The party's lack of consistency on the NHS is a particularly sore subject, following the revelation around the time of last month's by-election of Nigel Farage's enthusiasm back in 2012 for an insurance-based system run by private companies. As his party is now openly attempting to pick up Labour voters, Farage's former thoughts on NHS funding are damaging. So much so that he had to hastily insist that he would keep the NHS free at the point of use, without handing control over to "faceless private-sector companies".

But it's clear confusion about its approach to the health service endures among Ukip's high command. Writing in a column in the Express, Ukip deputy chairman Neil Hamilton suggests he would like to see more NHS outsourcing. He refers to "hopeless public sector procurement practices" compared to the efficiency of running a business in the private sector, and decries the "bloated budget" of the NHS.

Train-wreck? I don't think that the policy inconsistencies and contradictions that the UKIP continually throw up, almost on a daily basis, will be damaging to them. And by March, I imagine they will have prepared the hymn-sheet and they'll all be chirping away in unison, right up to the election!

Elections don't work the way you or the Statesman think they do.

''I see no trains''.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think that the policy inconsistencies and contradictions that the UKIP continually throw up, almost on a daily basis, will be damaging to them.

If this is the case, and it may be, so much the worse for everyone.

[Beef Oven!]

If this is the case, and it may be, so much the worse for everyone.

How so? How do you know this?