Yet another UKIP blunder
Discussion
Farage said:
“Maybe I’ve got a big announcement to make, you never know,” Farage said. “Like a lot of things I get invited to, a lot of private lunches and dinners and I never ever say a word about them. I was invited by Elton John and David Furnish to their house for a dinner which was held six or seven weeks ago. There were 15 or 20 people there. It was a private dinner but, yeah, we talked about politics and current affairs and all of these things and, yes, actually the press reports were right: I got on very well with Elton John indeed.”
Like he said though, he doesn't say a word about these things, doesn't like to talk about it, it was a private diner.league67 said:
steveT350C said:
I get that you are desperate for an argument
You ask a question, he answers your question, and that is the best that you can come up with? I guess it's better than roleyes smiley. I am on holiday with family so have better things to do than engage with mattnum or whatever his current nom de plume is. You troll types always seem to use multiple profiles. Why is that?
But I glean only truth
steveT350C said:
Ting Tong was a he, and, ironically, a creation from the BBC.
Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
When I see nonsense like that I wonder whether people actually believe it or if they deliberately misunderstand prejudice because it supports their point of view. Iain Dale sums up well..
http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-tin...
rs1952 said:
I found this very interesting, because it is a perfect example of typical muddle-headed thinking
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
I'd not noticed that before. They aren't for small government at all are they? They just want to aim their rules at frightful modern trendies and foreigners. People don't even notice the laws that they like.paranoid airbag said:
Here's the "less government" UKIP approach to, say, cycling:
It may have escaped the policymaker's attention, but cycling is not just an adult occupation. Kids do it too. Are you going to have a "simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’" on a five-year old's bike? How is this five year old going to get "minimum third party liability insurance cover" given that they cannot enter into an insurance, or indeed any, legal contract as a minor?UKIP manifesto said:
10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.
10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
And if UKIP are going to say - "ah well, this only applies to adults" then how and where do you draw the line? Size of bike? Bit of a problem with small adults and big kids. Age? Cyclists have no licence to cycle, so how are the authorities to know?
Then we read "We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges" And how would that be enforced then, given that you don't need a parking bay for a bike - you could chain it to railings, a lamp post or park it in somebody's garden.
It strikes me that for anything like this to work their would have to be a small army of "cycling police" to check that nobody is avoiding their tax discs, third party insurance liability and parking charges.
And this from a party that ostensibly stands for "small government"
Proof positive, if any more were needed, that UKIP is run by, and appeals to, people who were hiding behind the door when brains were being dished out.
s2art said:
None of that seems particularly difficult. Forget the 'disc' just have suitably sized numberplates for bikes. No plate equals not legal, no different to small motorbikes. Just extend DVLA coverage of vehicles, with the annual licence for bikes to cover minimum insurance. We already have the small army of police, including smart cameras, detecting vehicles with no road licence, no more would be required.
And for kids? Little Johnny takes his bike out of the drive onto the pavement and gets "nicked" for not having a number plate, indicating that he's fully taxed and insured. Oh wait - he's below the age of criminal responsibility so we can't nick him anyway. Oh, never mind, we can "do" his parents. That'll win the party a lot of new voters come the next election then, won't it You also of course realise that the simple expedient of "Just extend DVLA coverage of vehicles, with the annual licence for bikes to cover minimum insurance" would result in a staff increase in that august body who are always perfect and never make any mistakes. Or in other words, more government, not less.
But on top of all that, we have in this country over the last couple of generations managed to build up a society of sedentary lard-arses which are beginning to cost the NHS a fortune. Politicians, doctors and Christ knows who else are currently trying to get people off those lard arses and get a bit of exercise. Anything that seeks in any way to put obstacles in the way of cycling through increased regulation is likely to be opposed by some very big guns indeed.
"Vote UKIP to get even fatter kids and more people dying of type 2 diabetes in their 50s" I don't think that that's a slogan that's likely to catch on
The moral of this whole story is - have an idea by all means, but think through the full implications of it before you put it into a manifesto. This "policy" is a bigger real UKIP blunder than the original subject of this thread.
HonestIago said:
Having less government overall doesn't mean one can't bring in new initiatives/legislation in certain areas whilst minimising spending elsewhere. It's a rather petty point to make - everyone knows the budget is a balancing act (or not as in the case of the current and previous gov't).
But minimising spending isn't what they're going to do. If you think they put that in because they've given it honest thought and think it'll work, I've got a bridge to sell you. Try asking a police officer how many traffic offences they see on patrol, and how many get pulled.They put it in because it goes down well with bitter spiteful people, and because the war on drugs (another piece of unenforceable nonsense) was already done. You want less spending? Try, in no particular order:
-scrapping trident, about half the RAF, and re-evaluating our military commitments,
-legalising most drugs, thus freeing up police,
-raising the pension age to 75, and seriously consulting as to how much could be spent on healthcare for over 65's,
-abolishing VED for motorists, which since it stopped actually paying for roads decades ago, has completely failed to justify its existence,
-seriously consulting as to how often MPs need to turn up to actually fulfil their function, which is to represent their constituency, not toe the party line
But doing those things would need a PM who doesn't give a flying f
k if their public appearance is someone who's weak and unable to control the nation. Farage would be worse than Brown at it.Edited by paranoid airbag on Thursday 21st August 01:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff