Wes Tender

Was she on cleaning duty after the show?

You never asked me what constituted an ideal World in my opinion. There are so many facets which go towards making an ideal world and everybody will have a different view of what that means to them and which facets of it are priorities. But since you've asked now, the best way to illustrate my preferences would be to name a country that encompasses many of the aspects that I consider to be important in that respect. For me, that country would be New Zealand.

So? I also identified it as fictional. The point remains that if they are capable of producing such biased propaganda in a drama, it calls into question their integrity or their ability to produce impartial, honest reporting about them. It's just the same as expecting the Guardian of a left-wing bias, or the Telegraph of a right wing-bias on the basis of what their usual slant is on something. That drama on UKIP clearly identified Channel 4's position on them, so pardon me if I expect them to try and portray UKIP in as poor a light as possible from now on.

You're quite right that there are no laws currently that could enforce positive discrimination, what I meant was policies of positive action.

Nigel Farage has responded to reports that he had called for racial discrimination laws on employment to be removed if UKIP were elected. Mr Farage told the BBC his remarks, recorded last autumn, had been "wilfully misinterpreted", saying he was talking about nationality not race. The programme is to go out next week, so we can make up our own minds about whether his comments have been twisted or taken out of context. In his defence he quotes Gordon Brown calling for British jobs for British workers, and that he was calling for that too. I don't recall Labour getting in a tizzy about that at the time. And as this is Channel Four, it isn't as if they don't have previous form in making up stuff about UKIP or Farage. Their petty little drama about fictional events following a UKIP victory in the General Election hardly identifies them as a source of honesty, impartiality or integrity in their reporting. Personally I don't know what the fuss is all about, as it is difficult to prove discrimination in these sorts of cases anyway, as an employer or landlord can choose whoever they like as an employee or tenant unless they are a big organisation, when they might be affected by laws of positive discrimination which impose quotas on them.

Because you came up with such a crap analogy, I'm taking the view that it isn't worth debating this with you further, as you aren't up to accepting sensible responses like that which CEC gave above yours. You're probably just being a WUM over it all anyway. By the way, you're getting a right walloping from Verbal on that other fred.

The prize for the most crap analogy of the year goes to you, Pap. Comparing the concern voiced towards young children hearing the worst swear words with soldiers on a battle field hearing them, is right up there among the most feeble of thought processes. Read that last sentence again, and try to take it in that the annoyance at the use of bad language is on behalf of parents of young children. In other words, it involves consideration for others, which doesn't seem to be something high on your agenda.

As before, your opinions are riddled with holes and contradictions and it becomes clear that your thought processes identify you as a Green politically, with all the attendant airy-fairy wooly thinking that entails. A couple of others have echoed points I already made, that mass unregulated immigration directly affects housing, the NHS, education and employment in particular. You say that the housing market isn't affected by mass immigration, but where are all of them to live? You say that they have no environmental affect, but what about the extra housing needing to be built on green field sites to house everybody? The NHS would be damaged if it is increasingly difficult for foreign workers to come here? Why do you think that I proposed that people should be allowed to emigrate here if needed to fill particular skill sets, like doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, etc? I think that the Australian model works very well, as they have control over it. Optimum size of population for the UK? What do you think? When every square yard of it is concreted over? Which countries are not overcrowded? Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of South America, etc. The wealth gap is likely to increase because of this mass unregulated influx of immigrants, isn't it? After all, most come here as economic migrants so that is another hole in your arguments. As for the rest of your final paragraph, I was waiting for you to quote John Lennon's "Imagine" as your simplistic panacea for all the nation's problems. People should be free to take drugs? What type are you taking?

You go on deluding yourself that it is cool instead of being boorish behaviour that is inconsiderate of others. I wouldn't expect anything more of you.

You doubt that they would be prosecuted for singing "f*ck" out loud with an amplication system that made it audible to half the High Street? And the complainants might well consider themselves to be decent upstanding citizens and that it would be people like you that are the c*nts, although of course they would express that sentiment in more polite terms than you are capable of. Just because you would not be offended by it, doesn't mean that others shouldn't be.

I asked you to name those UKIP policies which you don't think make as much sense as the Green Party's policies that Batman made up, but I see that you don't intend to answer that, preferring to turn it back on me. But I'm not afraid to answer your question. A UKIP policy that makes sense and actually solves an actual problem? Immigration. The actual problem is that an unlimited number of people are allowed to migrate here solely based on their membership of the EU. You say that you would prefer to see a government tackling housing, the environment, NHS and healthcare and to improve the standard of living for everyone. Well, it seems to have escaped your notice that unlimited and unregulated immigration has an affect on pretty well all of those things that you mention. We are too crowded as an Island and massive strains are placed on housing, the NHS and the jobs market because we must allow immigration from any member EU state. The sensible position were we to have the power to implement it, would be regulated immigration based on our needs for people with qualifications in certain areas where there are skill shortages, a system such as Australia has. You say that UKIP's main thrust is towards the EU Budget being too big and in a throw away line you conclude that were it to be reduced, our government is perfectly capable of throwing taxpayers money away themselves. This ignores the fact that the money would be better thrown away by our elected government rather than by unelected faceless bureacrats for two simple reasons. Firstly, we would have a say where or on what that taxpayers' money was spent. Secondly, if it was felt that the government had wasted that money, they would be accountable at the ballot box in the next election. Also, rather naively you claim that too much influence is placed on money and the economy instead of improving the quality of life, whereas a strong economy with full employment which in return will give financial security, is the best way to improve the quality of life of the population. Regarding what constitutes an ideal world, well, that varies depending on one's political perspective. As you've dodged the UKIP question, perhaps you'll offer your opinion of what for you constitutes an ideal world instead.

It's a shame that people are so shallow that they might be put off voting for a party not on grounds of their policies or ability to run the country, but instead on whether the party leader is "likeable." But what you say about Cameron could equally be applied to Blair for those who weren't Labour. His stupid inane grin, his privileged public school background, which looked even more out of kilter with his working-class Sedgefield constituency. But did Labour even like him? Sections of the party certainly did not. The trouble is that there are no "big beasts" in the political jungle nowadays. They are all nonentities whose backgrounds are increasingly from the legal profession or as college/university lecturers. As such, they know little of real life, having spent their formative years in their ivory towers.

A clever song, ruined as a busking routine by the gratuitous use of the "f" word in a public place. I would expect many people, especially parents of young children, to be offended and I would also expect that they could be prosecuted for it as a public order offence.

Yes, I agree. It will be the most difficult election to call accurately for many a year. I suspect that the Lib Dems will get anihilated and either the SNP could end up helping Labour into power, or UKIP could help the Conservatives back into power. There is going to be a lot of tactical voting which could skew the outcome in key marginals.

Perhaps they could take a leaf out of our book politically and introduce their own Mansion Tax proposals.

Which UKIP policies did you have in mind that don't sound as logical as those that Batman made up? Come on, give it your best shot. There is a Utopian world and an ideal world, but most of us have to live in the real world.

I tried to post a video of Jergen the German from Harry Enfield on You Tube, but apparently they are blocked by the Beeb

Well, if you can't see the irony in Labour's Red Ed proposing to force people to enter into a debate against their will and the connection to the principles of free speech whereby one is free to speak one's mind, or equally free to refuse to comment, then I'm certain that I'll be wasting my time trying to explain it to you. Have you not heard of the saying that you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink? But also you don't need to explain the principles of democracy to me, I do know how it works. By and large our political candidates can choose to explain their policies to their electorate by numerous methods, the Party manifesto, Question Time debates, their own election literature, their weekly surgeries, etc. But I see that you prefer the whole thing to be a Presidential style format, trying to convince the electorate to vote for a Party on the basis of how their leader comes across on TV instead of how good your local constituency MP would be. And I have to laugh at your suggestion that if anybody refused to attend these debates in the future, (should attendance become a legal obligation), your solution will be that they will represented by an empty chair. The punishment should fit the crime, eh? The only law-breaking to be punished by such laughable retribution would make Labour a laughing stock. Ed obviously hasn't thought that part of it through, if he thinks that the punishment for breaking the law by refusing to attend these debates would be as per your suggestion.

I see now that Red Ed, if elected, will force the leaders of the main political parties to attend TV debates in future elections by act of Parliament. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-leaders-tv-debates-guarantee-law. Typical of the wooly thinking of the loony left-wing not to realise the irony of that position, that if there is to be freedom of speech where within reason people are permitted to express their own opinions, then there is a tacit understanding that as a part of that freedom, nobody should be forced to express their opinions if they don't wish to. How do they think that they could enforce this if a politician refused to attend?

The only voters who ought to have a referendum out of that lot are the English. The Northern Irish and Welsh have their own Assemblies and the Scots have their own Parliament. And yet all of their MPs elected to our Parliament can vote on English matters when ours are excluded on voting on theirs. It was bad enough when Labour MPs from Wales and Scotland brought about a Labour majority, but a Labour Government propped up by an alliance of SNPs would make the clamour for and independent English Parliament irresistable.

Reported in the Telegraph:- I repeat, there were not 22 million viewers of the debates in 2010. There were three TV debates and it is rather disingenuous for the broadcasters to insinuate that 22 million people watched them, when it was in reality probably 7 million or so of the same people who watched all three debates. Furthermore, the majority of that audience almost certainly comprised viewers who had already made up their minds which way they would vote.

Was I defending Cameron, apart from saying that he must have his strategic reasons for declining further TV debates beyond the one with the 7 leaders? When you put up my quote, I thought the purpose was to argue the toss on what on what I said. Anybody care to justify the figure of 22 million that Adam Boulton claims will be the audience for the TV debates? It is a bit like saying that the viewing figures for Eastenders equates to virtually the entire population of the UK each week, when it is the same 7-8 million viewers every night.

Won't there be any party political broadcasts? Can't he speak to the electorate in them? And where does this figure of 22 million people come from? That's more than double the number who watched the TV debates last time around. Do they add up all the viewing figures from each prospective debate, even though it will mostly be the same people watching them each time? A bit like the left's proposed Mansion Tax being the funding answer to three different policy funding needs?

So presumably all the bile and name-calling against Maggie Thatcher would condemn those who used it to the same conclusion from you, that they were not much cop as thinkers either? I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and have been doing so all my working life. Often though, my idea of a fair level of taxation and Labour's left-wing have very different ideas about what is fair. You infer that you love paying taxes, is that correct?

Jump to whatever conclusion you like. Labour wish to reach the same conclusion and have even started internet petitions in a vain attempt to force him to extra televised debates beyond that which he has already agreed to. Quite how they think they can force him to take part in a debate when he doesn't wish to, I don't know. As Cameron would trample all over Red Ed in a face to face debate, then he must have his own strategic reasons for declining it and those reasons will certainly have nothing to do with him being afraid of Ed, or indeed anybody else that Labour could put up. Labour say that in the event that they cannot force Cameron into a debate, they would be prepared for Red Ed to face an hour long grilling by Paxman. Bring it on, I say. Paxman would eat him for breakfast.