Not so harmless

[Lateralthinking1]

........incidentally, he got 33% in Meopham a little while back - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfzwDtwYfY

[amateur51]

I don't think that any political party has credibility now.

I understand your basic point, Lat but would just offer up this to suggest that there are still some politicians of merit outside the three-party system ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_631JCrX_rI&feature=endscreen

Anyone who can get the SneerMeister so clearly on the back foot while making good points makes me smile - sadly I can't vote for him :erm::smiley:

[ahinton]

........incidentally, he got 33% in Meopham a little while back - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfzwDtwYfY

Was this before or after he made these particularly obnoxious his of his views publicly known?

[Lateralthinking1]

I understand your basic point, Lat but would just offer up this to suggest that there are still some politicians of merit outside the three-party system ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_631JCrX_rI&feature=endscreen

Anyone who can get the SneerMeister so clearly on the back foot while making good points makes me smile - sadly I can't vote for him :erm::smiley:

:laugh: :ok:

That's brilliant!

(According to Wiki, he's been with PC since 1963 so he's no political fly-by-night either)

[Lateralthinking1]

Was this before or after he made these particularly obnoxious his of his views publicly known?

Almost certainly not after - although I don't know how long his "personal manifesto" has been in the public domain.

He seems to have stood, or be standing, all over Meopham and the Gravesend area at various levels. I don't quite understand it. Possibly it indicates that UKIP has difficulties in finding candidates in numbers. At the same time, he was until this month held in high esteem by the leadership. He wasn't just an also ran in the party.

There is a naivety in the leadership. Many UKIP supporters are elderly. A fair number are probably not overly keen on abortion. It isn't just that what he was saying was outrageously wild. It was bound to lose them natural voters.

It appears that much of his success to date has been on the grounds that he has opposed widespread development in green areas. The mainstream parties might wish to note the strength of feeling on that issue and the extent to which some people will vote for extremists if they will at least promise to protect the countryside.

[Demetrius]

this man, if he is always like this, is an insult for the journalistic profession.

[Lateralthinking1]

this man, if he is always like this, is an insult for the journalistic profession.

Paxman on Newsnight? When it comes to many MPs, I tend to support him. I have always rated him quite highly but the researchers on that programme aren't what they were.

In the case of the man from Plaid Cymru, I have had another look at my fantasy list of places to retire to when the time is right. St Davids, Pembrokeshire, has suddenly shot up that list again! :biggrin:

[Demetrius]

Paxman.

looking at another youtube video, I don't really think I ought to change my first impression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWggAgmSghU

He starts of on track, Questioning the London Union Leader about her presence in the building, which I suppose was ... illadviced, to say the least.

Then he goes on a limp asking about her age and her sabbatical, clearly trying to paint her in a certain corner: longtime student, getting paid for
lazing around on sabbaticals paid for by others, without being too clear about who those others are. my student union leaders are getting paid
for by the student body which elected them. A quick look around wikipedia shows that in the UK its done either by the student body or the University,
in the last case you have to also consider that the students pay considerable amounts of tuition fees to the University in the first place. Sabbaticals
seem to be limited to one, at max 2 years (and I would like that to be the case in Germany). Paxman basically tries to discredit someone with a
cheap shot at something that is a nonstory in the first place; when he realises that his point doesn't hold up to facts (she predictably didnt answer
14 Years and 12 years on sabbatical) he drops the point immediately, but without so much as an acknowledgement that he took the wrong side there.

Now, I'm as a student very much on his side of the argument, as these kinds of protests are completly nonsensical and even contra productive.
That doesn't make the cheap shot any better.

It is basically the same thing. He goes on a limp that is disproved by facts and then drops it silently; He is the face of the research team behind him,
if they get him so evidently wrong facts that people can comment that his researchers aren't quite up to their job in general, it disqualifies him as a
good journalist. If he doesn't hold any kinds of facts and still decides to go on the hunt, he is simply unqualified to be a journalist in the first place.

Being aggressive is one thing, but he ought to get his facts straight beforehand.

[salymap]

The over 80s have enough to concern them without this sort of thing. Only recently it was announced that cancer care was to be rationed for the elderly.

I'msorry that a lovely place like Meopham has that creep in any capacity too.

[Serial_Apologist]

Paxman.

looking at another youtube video, I don't really think I ought to change my first impression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWggAgmSghU

He starts of on track, Questioning the London Union Leader about her presence in the building, which I suppose was ... illadviced, to say the least.

Then he goes on a limp asking about her age and her sabbatical, clearly trying to paint her in a certain corner: longtime student, getting paid for
lazing around on sabbaticals paid for by others, without being too clear about who those others are. my student union leaders are getting paid
for by the student body which elected them. A quick look around wikipedia shows that in the UK its done either by the student body or the University,
in the last case you have to also consider that the students pay considerable amounts of tuition fees to the University in the first place. Sabbaticals
seem to be limited to one, at max 2 years (and I would like that to be the case in Germany). Paxman basically tries to discredit someone with a
cheap shot at something that is a nonstory in the first place; when he realises that his point doesn't hold up to facts (she predictably didnt answer
14 Years and 12 years on sabbatical) he drops the point immediately, but without so much as an acknowledgement that he took the wrong side there.

Now, I'm as a student very much on his side of the argument, as these kinds of protests are completly nonsensical and even contra productive.
That doesn't make the cheap shot any better.

It is basically the same thing. He goes on a limp that is disproved by facts and then drops it silently; He is the face of the research team behind him,
if they get him so evidently wrong facts that people can comment that his researchers aren't quite up to their job in general, it disqualifies him as a
good journalist. If he doesn't hold any kinds of facts and still decides to go on the hunt, he is simply unqualified to be a journalist in the first place.

Being aggressive is one thing, but he ought to get his facts straight beforehand.

The problem is craveness in interviewees - it's that old Stanley Milgram syndrome yet again: putting someone in charge automatically conferring spurious power, so brainwashed are so many people by power structures. I never watch Newsnight and haven't watched University Challenge for years now, so disgusting is Paxperson's glib habit of showing how so much cleverer he is than the students who have not seen the questions beforehand.

[Serial_Apologist]

The over 80s have enough to concern them without this sort of thing. Only recently it was announced that cancer care was to be rationed for the elderly.

I'msorry that a lovely place like Meopham has that creep in any capacity too.

I saw there is some report out today recommending that suitability for treatments should not be age-determined, saly. Lots of these reports of recommendation seem to be emerging at this time, just to prove that the system has its inbuilt capacity for self-correction, whereas in fact those at the coalface, the only ones who can in the end resort to industrial muscle to make it happen, are being demoralised by having their numbers decimated through cuts that in themselves reduce time and room for correction.

[Lateralthinking1]

I saw there is some report out today recommending that suitability for treatments should not be age-determined, saly. Lots of these reports of recommendation seem to be emerging at this time, just to prove that the system has its inbuilt capacity for self-correction, whereas in fact those at the coalface, the only ones who can in the end resort to industrial muscle to make it happen, are being demoralised by having their numbers decimated through cuts that in themselves reduce time and room for correction.

This point is very clear to me. Wherever under economic duress, it appears that basic human morality is likely to depart, it needs to be bolstered by an appeal to others' self-interest. In the absence of any constructive solutions, some politicians are being card sharp, arguing both that services to the current elderly should be maintained but also actively encouraging a battle between the generations. That idea of younger generations having to pay ultimately with consequential anger on one side and guilt on the other. That isn't on. It will require regular challenge to ensure that in the long term it is viewed as unacceptable and irrational.

We can't go mad on expenditure for any generation currently. That is plain to everyone. At the same time, the argument that any money being saved from elderly care now will benefit future generations isn't one to be trusted. We must provide good services for older people. The best chances of someone now aged 30 getting decent care at 80 is to ensure that the principle of elderly care is robustly maintained. What the young need to know is this. The schism some are trying to create isn't occurring purely between the generations. It is happening on class grounds principally among those aged 40 to 60. Where perhaps 30-50% of us in that category have now been placed is where 80-90% of those currently under 30 will be placed unless essential principles remain in place.