to think fox hunting is not a big deal at all?

[chandellina]

and should never have been the subject of national debate, since it affects about 100 people? (ok, maybe more, but not many)

I was a vegetarian when it was banned, btw. I just think it's such a non-issue, and can't believe it is still being trotted out as a reason not to vote Tory.

lol @ Khanage

Khanage - I agree. I wonder if a hunt would be willing to visit Peckham?

If the labor party were clear about the pledge to finally bring us into the twentieth century. then you can't say this was lobbying or covert pressure by a minority group. No group is going to fund a party that opposes its philosophy, but most likely will support one that does. if their mutual ethos catches the zeitgeist then we will see change.

To try to paint that as special interest lobbying, shows a very poor understanding of politics. This came about because Blair knew it was a vote winner, ergo, it was the public will.

By the way, simply because something is a quote from antiquity, doesn't lend it merit. for example I might say that political will is with the majority because "Might is right," I'll let you look that one up.

Such a vote winner in fact that more than half his majority buggered off just after he forced this act through parliament!
I looked up might is right by the way, found the following by sir walter Raleigh-
The doctrine that Might is Right, though it is true, is an unprofitable doctrine, for it is true only in so broad and simple a sense that no one would dream of denying it. If a single nation can conquer, depress, and destroy all the other nations of the earth and acquire for itself a sole dominion, there may be matter for question whether God approves that dominion; what is certain is that He permits it. No earthly governor who is conscious of his power will waste time in listening to arguments concerning what his power ought to be. His right to wield the sword can be challenged only by the sword. An all-powerful governor who feared no assault would never trouble himself to assert that Might is Right. He would smile and sit still. The doctrine, when it is propounded by weak humanity, is never a statement of abstract truth; it is a declaration of intention, a threat, a boast, an advertisement. It has no value except when there is some one to be frightened. But it is a very dangerous doctrine when it becomes the creed of a stupid people, for it flatters their self-sufficiency, and distracts their attention from the difficult, subtle, frail, and wavering conditions of human power. The tragic question for Germany to-day is what she can do, not whether it is right for her to do it. The buffaloes, it must be allowed, had a perfect right to dominate the prairie of America, till the hunters came. They moved in herds, they practised shock-tactics, they were violent, and very cunning. There are but few of them now. A nation of men who mistake violence for strength, and cunning for wisdom, may conceivably suffer the fate of the buffaloes and perish without knowing why.

I think the reduction in the majority had more to do with the war, but that's for a different thread.

I guess we agree that just because a quotation scans well, doesn't mean it lends weight to your argument. many people opposed democracy after American independence, describing it as "mob rule," which of course it is. But the alternative is minority rule or autocracy, so which one are you advocating?

The electorate voted in a party who promised to rid us of fox hunting, should we bring back bear baiting or cock fighting? perhaps dog fighting or hare coursing because a minority might want to? I'm sorry but opposing the fox hunting ban on the grounds that it spoils peoples fun is obvious nonsense. opposing it on economic ground is like repealing abolition to boost the sales of manacles. It is the will of the people, we had a vote and the blood thirsty ones lost, live with it.

I think it's very tough to say that the majority of Labour voters (themselves a minority of the voting population) were explicitly voting for the ban.

I do live with it. Although it lost labour my vote. The ban really doesn't affect my life, although I live in the country and am an ex hunt servant. To refer to the op, I do feel however that there are bigger issues, which are more worthy of national debate. From an animal welfare point of view, yes hunting is cruel, but so are much bigger issues, like vivisection and intensive farming, which get a lot less coverage in the commons.

From the start of your post, tinnitus, you said people stopped voting labour because of the war. Maybe the war is the reason the rest of them did vote labour, and hunting is a non issue.

And if it's the will of the people, how come labour had to invoke the parliament act to get it through?

chandellina

True, but it was in the manifesto, so it was defiantly not lobbying or covert.

jurisfictionoperative

The first two post make it obvious what you are trying to do and why.

The answer to your third post is simple, the house of frauds lords is, and always has been unelected, undemocratic, unrepresentative, and full of hunt members. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

TBH I really dislike foxes anyway. Horrible animals, I really don't feel the government should waste too much time on them.

What's teh point of foxhunting though? Why can't toffs just chase a scent/ Why is Cameron so keen to lift the ban? Coz he's a toff. And so out of touch with modern Britain.
Fox hunting has no place in modern society. Neither does vivesection unless mabe for cures for serious illness.

Glad you know what I am trying to do, I lost the plot years ago! Personally I think that the whole system of government is flawed, and the whole thing needs a total overhaul, and I haven't got time for any of it, but I love a good debate, and the whole fox hunting/ animal welfare issue is my favourite topic!

Congratulations marge on wining Tuesday's "class assumptions" prize.