Ban both Fox Hunting and Football

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

Quoting Bren:

"Blair is quite happy to three-line-whip all his flunkies into the House for these set-piece battles."

Not true - this will be a free vote - not whipped.

Sorry Gav, and with all due deference to your role as a Labour Party apparatchik, but whilst this is not a whipped division, the rest of the country has great difficulty in believing that Blair didn't have a hand in, ahem, 'expecting and encouraging' Labour members to vote along party and manifesto lines, however you might seek to present it otherwise.

Originally Posted by Gav

The facts are quite clear.

Yes, the facts are quite clear - a shed-load of UK citizens/tax-payers face an uncertain future under this legislation.

Originally Posted by Gav

The Commons have voted on this issue a number of times and have decided to ban every time. The legislation has been held up by an unelected chamber.

Err... the upper house very recently gave the current bill an unopposed first reading - not what I call 'holding up' anything!

An unelected chamber (over every political hue) chosen by an elected chamber (of every political hue), which might suggest your criticism may question the PM's and elected members' judgement? - and a chamber which doesn't have to whore itself (as does every MP) and commit to/agree to/promise to do anything to gain both a seat and power.

Yes it's a political anomaly - but if it is productive (which is most definitely is; the Lords have, for many years, got through far more 'work' than the Commons) and not wont to the same 'say anything to retain our position' lies and dissembling as the lower house, then it's an anomaly with which I'm prepared to live - after all, it's not like it damages our democracy in any way: quite the opposite. By your comments I take it that you disagree with the make-up of the upper house? I see it very much as a help rather than hindrance.

You and I both know that that upper house has, on any number of occasions, under both chief parties, acted as a much needed brake on over-zealous PMs and cabinets trying to get their expedient way at the expense of proper debate.

The fact that the Lords (now largely non-hereditary and therfore without most of its former 'hunting-shootin-fishin' brigade of 'horny-handed sons of toil' land-owning caricature) get through a heavier workload, work longer hours, have a greater number of independents and 'cross-benchers' (and could therefore be said be more truly representative of the populace at large as there a fewer party animals/slaves to party-line edict) than their Commons counterparts. Lollipop ladies to businessmen and women of every ethnicity are to found in the Lords - way to go!

Originally Posted by Gav

I care naught on this issue but feel that the elected house has made its wishes clear on a number of occaisons.

You care nought on this issue and the government cares nought on more pressing issues of the day - as detailed earlier in this thread. I'm seeing a pattern in the Labour Party...Party before country....not a pretty sight, I have to say.

Originally Posted by Gav

Everyone will have the chance to vote the current administration out next year - until then the wishes of the house are democratic and until anyone shows me otherwise - democracy is the best system we have.

And no one here has ever argued otherwise - so this is just rhetoric. I wouldn't expect the government to be given a sympathetic run at the next general election, especially by large tracts of those who got them into power in the first place, after they've been royally rogered and face uncertain futures - a bit like the Miners and Steel-workers et al felt towards Thatcher.

Actually, and in your favour, Blair faces quite a similar propsect to Thatcher: she faced that, even then, relic of an old fool Foot; followed rapidly by the wave-dodging-whoops-a-daisy Kinnock (two more unelectable Muppets you couldn't be more happy to find yourself up against); Blair now faces 'there's something of the night about him' Howard and his team of untested schoolboys. Trying to make a winning team from a bunch of 3rd-formers when you're playing in the upper-sixth championships is a no-contest gig.

That said, as we found during the last Euro Elections: folks don't have to move their party or politcal allegiance permanently to register a protest vote, come the election. They just have to vote in sufficient numbers to remove those whom they deem to have made their lives more difficult. No doubt the proof will be in the pudding.

Originally Posted by Gav

If there was a change of government any anti-hunting legislation could be repealed by a new government with a suitable majority.

Agreed - but even if this were to happen (a change of gov't), I can't see Howard either A) being in power to do so or B) having the balls to do it; regardless of what he might promise on the stump...but isn't that where we came in? Politicians saying anything to either gain or remain in power?

[John N]

Originally Posted by HelenM

I think that I'd echo Andy's though that it is education and not legislation that is required here though.

And where I do I want my government to concentrate it's overpaid and unwieldy resources?

It seems clear, that since this legislation was a manifesto pledge of a democratically elected government, it should be passed.

There are however discussions to be had over the nature of democracy, such as the tolerance of minorities pursuing endeavours that the majority may not agree with (within reason).

In this case though, we all knew it was coming. I'm just surprised it's taken this long.

On a more pedantic note, can resources be overpaid?

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by HelenM

I think that I'd echo Andy's though that...

So Andy has plenty of 'thoughs' does he H? I'd have thought that to be Schoolgirl, Mutter

Originally Posted by H

And where I do I want my government to concentrate it's overpaid and unwieldy resources?

Or rather "Where do I want...."

Sloppy.

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

So Andy has plenty of 'thoughs' does he H? I'd have thought that to be Schoolgirl, Mutter

Or rather "Where do I want...."

Sloppy.

Oh balls

Oh John, an MP is a resource - some would suggest that they are overpaid ... they certainly voted themselves a delightful pension plan which they seek to deny the rest of the country. Jobs and dosh for the boys eh?

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by dave archer

PS, I'm on Lou's side in this one. Key point being the distressing/killing animals for fun (regardless of by products / excuses) is a sign of a sick mind AFAIAC

Dave

As opposed to watching whilst the gov't ignores 10,000 souls a month dying - and how 'distressing' do you think that might be Dave? How much of a sick mind - be you an elected representative or other - do you need to possess to stand idly by and allow that to happen?

I am not, and have never argued for fox hunting, whale-baiting, cat-finning or any other form of cruelty to animals, here or elsewhere - what I have put forward is that there are more pressing issues that this government needs to address urgently and is not doing so.

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

As opposed to watching whilst the gov't ignores 10,000 souls a month dying - and how 'distressing' do you think that might be Dave? How much of a sick mind - be you an elected representative or other - do you need to possess to stand idly by and allow that to happen?

I am not, and have never argued for fox hunting, whale-baiting, cat-finning or any other form of cruelty to animals, here or elsewhere - what I have put forward is that there are more pressing issues that this government needs to address urgently and is not doing so.

Originally Posted by Lou

If it were shown that we really were stopping a debate to vote to send in troops or some real action in Darfur to debate hunting then I would agree with you.

Erm i think that this has already been discussed. BTW, I think that there are much more important things to discuss, but thats just me, and is only my opinion (which is by its very nature worthless to anyone other than myself). I can scream and shout and stamp my feet (and hold a rally in Hyde Park, rampage into the House of Commons, and pledge to go to prison), but there is no way they will discuss the vitally important issue of developing calorie free Ben & Jerrys.

Every problem facing the government has to be discussed sometime . If we put it off every time it gets to the house of commons simply because someone else says this issue here is more important, then it will never be dealt with. As Lou said, if it were stopping anything to do with other issues then fine. But i doubt very much it is.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Porg

Erm i think that this has already been discussed.

Err.. actually we were in the process of discussing it until you interrupted.... just because you might not like the subject matter, please do not think you can curtail other's discussion.

[Helen F H]

So now im not allowed to comment on a discussion on here?

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Porg

So now im not allowed to comment on a discussion on here?

Helen,

this is the second time today you've tried to hijack this thread and make it about 'you'. Please don't let there be a third.

Yes you are welcome to comment here, but when I see you (or anyone for that matter) trying to curtail an ongoing debate ("I think this has been discussed..." - your allusion that it should go no further because you think so) and then wildly misquoting folks (I'd answered Lou's quote that you lifted and quoted above in another post here) and then go on a rant about precisely how valid your opinion is, and precisely where it comes from, and why it is yours etc. it doesn't add to the debate, it merely becomes rhetoric.

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

I am not, and have never argued for fox hunting, whale-baiting, cat-finning or any other form of cruelty to animals, here or elsewhere - what I have put forward is that there are more pressing issues that this government needs to address urgently and is not doing so.

Annnnnd so this isnt about you.......
I think you will find that Lou's quote directly answers the final part of your post. I am entitled to my opinion, like it or not. Oops sorry Bren, but you cant possibly be wrong can you. Now ban me if you want.