To hell with foxes - it is ants that set me off. Industrious little creatures and very admirable in their tenacity, but I do wish that they would be busy somewhere faraway from my kitchen and herb garden.
Supposedly something like 20 percent of ants are unemployed.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
Its entirely possible that Labour regains all the seats it lost in North-West England in 2010. Together with Manchester Withington and Rochdale this would mean Labour having more seats in the region in 2015 than they did in 2005.
East of the Pennines its entirely possible that Labour have fewer MPs in 2015 than they did in 2010 - a gain in Dewsbury but losses in Bradford West and Grimsby.
This is a very strange election.
Please note the above are only possibilities not what I'm actually expecting.
Certainly Simon Reevell looks a goner as Dewsbury's MP after just one term. I had great hopes for him back in 2010 but sadly he has proved to be almost invisible. Labour will recapture this seat with ease.
The UKIP spread market was artificially high in the first place to cater for the risk of defections/black swans etc
Obviously as each day passes without those events, the price should fall
Correct. Which means the "fair" price depends entirely on whether there is a stop loss at 10 seats. In my browser, there is, so the fair price is probably 3 with a spread of 2-4. Another poster does not get that notification in their browser. I have taken a screen shot in the event of any dispute, since I am a UKIP seller (for small sums, at 4.5). Anyone work for SPIN?
Hasegawa said they discovered that about 80 percent of the ants engage in some sort of work, such as cleaning the nest or gathering food, but that the rest are mostly idle.
The situation remained the same when the researchers removed six busy ants from one colony; the busy ants that remained had to work even harder while the lazy ants continued to do little or no work.
Scientists have suggested that some ants may avoid working due to old age or inherent laziness. Hasegawa said the idle ants could be contributing something to the colony that they have not yet determined.
To hell with foxes - it is ants that set me off. Industrious little creatures and very admirable in their tenacity, but I do wish that they would be busy somewhere faraway from my kitchen and herb garden.
Supposedly something like 20 percent of ants are unemployed.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Isn't that the whole evolution thing re rabbits for example? They have to run faster than foxes as to the fox they're the next meal - to the rabbit it's life and death.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
To hell with foxes - it is ants that set me off. Industrious little creatures and very admirable in their tenacity, but I do wish that they would be busy somewhere faraway from my kitchen and herb garden.
I have had them in my kitchen for over a week now, unfortunately I haven't been able to get to my local hardware shop which is the only place that still seems to sell organophosphate ant poison. That usually deals with them pretty promptly.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
It is and always has been a metropolitan elite envy issue, pure and simple.
OT, does anyone else think Natalie Bennett is saying 'Robert Wood Tax' rather than 'Robin Hood Tax' on World at One?
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Was it you who posted how much you enjoyed punching someone in the face on here a few weeks ago?
I think you also challenged a poster rather aggressively to say something to your face last night too.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
Lots of misplaced sympathy to go about, it seems.
Do humans assist cats, wolves and lions to do what comes naturally to them, and organise their social calendar around such events?
Well, since ants seem to the the mode of the moment, did you know that worker ants are more closely related to each other than they are to their mother (queen ant)?
Apparently it is due to the fact that male ants only have half the chromosomes - it would rather like a human male only having 23 instead of 46 - so all ant sperm from one male is genetically identical. Thus 50% of the worker DNA (from their dad) is the same and the additional DNA from their mum means that they have more DNA in common with their sisters than with either of their parents.
Its entirely possible that Labour regains all the seats it lost in North-West England in 2010. Together with Manchester Withington and Rochdale this would mean Labour having more seats in the region in 2015 than they did in 2005.
East of the Pennines its entirely possible that Labour have fewer MPs in 2015 than they did in 2010 - a gain in Dewsbury but losses in Bradford West and Grimsby.
This is a very strange election.
Please note the above are only possibilities not what I'm actually expecting.
Certainly Simon Reevell looks a goner as Dewsbury's MP after just one term. I had great hopes for him back in 2010 but sadly he has proved to be almost invisible. Labour will recapture this seat with ease.
I know of so many people up here who would normally have voted Labour but who voted LD last time. Not one of them is making the same mistake again. Other than Mrs S, who seems tempted to vote Green (suits me in our Labour/Tory marginal!), they're all back in the Labour fold, regardless of how much they dislike Ed. It's interesting looking on my Facebook feed at the number of anti-Tory "save the NHS etc" type posts I'm seeing to confirm that trend.
The LD surge inevitably helped the Tories take northern marginals I didn't expect them to get, and with that certain reversal of 2010 LDs back to Labour, there isn't a hope in hell of the Tories retaining many of them. The slight cause for optimism caused by Ashcroft predicting that Pendle remains Tory (doubtful I'd say) and Rossendale, South Ribble too close to call does not make me waver. I am confident all these, perhaps not S Ribble, will go back Labour.
The Conservative Party is as repellent as ever up here, and it was the strength of the LDs that handed them seats in 2010, not vast swathes of folk shifting from Labour to Tory.
Well quite. Incidentally, I've never seen a cat actually eat a vole - IIRC they taste horrible [a pretty crap defence mechanism]. I had dozens of them left for dead in the house - never mice, they were yummied up.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
The UKIP spread market was artificially high in the first place to cater for the risk of defections/black swans etc
Obviously as each day passes without those events, the price should fall
I see that Spreadex appears to have given up offering a straightforward GE Seats market for each of the main parties. Perhaps they feel that they can't compete with Sporting's belated reductions on their Con & Lab spreads from a greedy 6 seats to a much fairer 4 seats.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
You couldn't make this up!
Both manifestos are underwhelming - Labour's more so...
PS - the mention of fox-hunting and Tories in the same sentence could be fatally damaging. I can't believe how this got through the election 'committee'.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Labour's manifesto convinced me to stick my profit in Coatbridge back on the SNP.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Many Kippers support hunting; Farage is happy to be seen at hunt meets, and supports the Tory plan to repeal the ban albeit on libertarian grounds.
I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
Lots of misplaced sympathy to go about, it seems.
Do humans assist cats, wolves and lions to do what comes naturally to them, and organise their social calendar around such events?
A good point. But I think that if it's only wrong because it's a socialised, that isn't a very strong argument that it is wrong. Do people take vicarious pleasure in watching a magnificent hunting animal tear its prey to shreds? On widescreen TV with a narrator you wish was your uncle and some stunning scenery in the background, apparently it's more politically and culturally acceptable. Do humans help one animal to hunt another? Seems to be the point of the barn cat, and numerous other examples of one beast use for the "pest control" of another. So I'm reluctant to castigate fox-hunting as some unique evil which brings out the worst in human nature, though as a fluffy sensitive urban vegetarian type, it's really not my bag.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Who insulted anyone? Or used slogans?
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
You couldn't make this up!
Both manifestos are underwhelming - Labour's more so...
Are the public going to ignore the obvious funding hole in the Conservatives' manifesto? Labour have to decide whether they're going to point it out relentlessly, risking the battle being on terrain where the Conservatives have been seen as far stronger for years, or to rely on other parties doing so.
A better approach for Labour would be to focus on the Conservatives' lack of credibility for delivering nice things, given the last five years' grind, and using the funding gap as a way of showing that they won't in practice happen.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
Yes, that's my view. We should absolutely look to not manufacture cruelty. But I would see personally no contradiction in raising pigs organically for meat on a small scale farm, or keeping them as pets or small scale rotunders.
Labour have to decide whether they're going to point it out relentlessly, risking the battle being on terrain where the Conservatives have been seen as far stronger for years, or to rely on other parties doing so.
The danger for Labour there is the SNP
Any debate on spending will be met with "Nicola has to sign off your budget, and she wants another 180 billion..."
I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
Lots of misplaced sympathy to go about, it seems.
Do humans assist cats, wolves and lions to do what comes naturally to them, and organise their social calendar around such events?
A good point. But I think that if it's only wrong because it's a socialised, that isn't a very strong argument that it is wrong. Do people take vicarious pleasure in watching a magnificent hunting animal tear its prey to shreds? On widescreen TV with a narrator you wish was your uncle and some stunning scenery in the background, apparently it's more politically and culturally acceptable. Do humans help one animal to hunt another? Seems to be the point of the barn cat, and numerous other examples of one beast use for the "pest control" of another. So I'm reluctant to castigate fox-hunting as some unique evil which brings out the worst in human nature, though as a fluffy sensitive urban vegetarian type, it's really not my bag.
Well I guess I cant say, because I love watching wildlife programs, but hate watching animals kill each other
Nature is what it is, and it isn't nice or comforting at times.. as for fox hunting. I am not really one for calling for a ban on it, just have my opinions of people that think its all a bit of fun
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.
I recognise and respect that for you, Tyson, this is a black and white issue. I also consider myself very fond of animals - I even had some questions over the necessity of the mass badger cull myself - but i don't see things the same way you do.
The Tories are using all their banked poker chips on a spending spree - it's believable enough. Labour can't do that and can't make much headway claiming the Tories won't make the sums add up.
They wasted 5yrs reinforcing their own profligacy. Too late now. Some may think that Tories *won't* do it because they're EVIL - but that's another matter.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
You couldn't make this up!
Both manifestos are underwhelming - Labour's more so...
Are the public going to ignore the obvious funding hole in the Conservatives' manifesto? Labour have to decide whether they're going to point it out relentlessly, risking the battle being on terrain where the Conservatives have been seen as far stronger for years, or to rely on other parties doing so.
A better approach for Labour would be to focus on the Conservatives' lack of credibility for delivering nice things, given the last five years' grind, and using the funding gap as a way of showing that they won't in practice happen.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The only animals I never fancied keeping were sheep - they're so stupid, and seem to delight in falling upsidedown into ditches or breaking their legs in rabbit holes whilst casually wandering about.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
Yes, that's my view. We should absolutely look to not manufacture cruelty. But I would see personally no contradiction in raising pigs organically for meat on a small scale farm, or keeping them as pets or small scale rotunders.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
I take it that you recall the threads on AV only too well then.
One of the joys another hung parliament is that I expect electoral reform to be back on the agenda.
I'm already salivating at the prospect of writing the threads on will the Lib Dems agree on a coalition with party x in exchange for multi member STV
As our absent friend Socrates was quick to realise the crucial detail with multi-member STV is the number of members per constituency. I'm sure we can fill quite a number of threads with arguing the merits of three-member constituencies versus five-member constituencies, or of varying the number of members to fit natural boundaries, etc.
What a prospect... Please do give me fair warning in advance, so I can be sure not to, er, miss out.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Many Kippers support hunting; Farage is happy to be seen at hunt meets, and supports the Tory plan to repeal the ban albeit on libertarian grounds.
In my interview to be a candidate, part of the process was a mock radio interview where the guy fired questions at me to trip me up/test my knowledge of the policies. Fox Hunting came up and when I said my honest opinion he said what you just did. I just said just because we agree on immigration and the EU doesn't mean we have to agree on every issue.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
Neither deserves to win, though the Conservatives' manifesto is better packaged.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Who insulted anyone? Or used slogans?
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
"Jesus that sounds like a load of shite" - No, nothing insulting there are all.
You didn't make any point to argue, save that in your opinion tradition was less important that foxes, which is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence or argument with which people may or may not agree.
Personally I think its cant, thousands of foxes die "naturally" in unpleasant circumstances every year, you don't propose a National Save The Fox program, with retirement homes for elderly foxes, hence your argument boils down to you wanting to such things to happen out of your sight, which means its about your personal comfort and nothing to do with foxes.
Which is of course leaving aside the unpleasant outcomes of most alternative ways of controlling the fox population, which farmers will do with substantially more vigour without the income from the hunts on their land.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
Don't. My current client demands I do one, even though I'm just a consultant.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?
The only animals I never fancied keeping were sheep - they're so stupid, and seem to delight in falling upsidedown into ditches or breaking their legs in rabbit holes whilst casually wandering about.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
Yes, that's my view. We should absolutely look to not manufacture cruelty. But I would see personally no contradiction in raising pigs organically for meat on a small scale farm, or keeping them as pets or small scale rotunders.
Agree about sheep, but lambs seem to be more bright. Have been bottle feeding at weekends some 'joey lambs' from sets of triplets at a neighbour's farm. Very lively they are and can smell milk in a bottle a good distance away.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
"I wish people would not package anti fox hunting into some wider kind of anti rural narrative - as if there is some kind of exterior motive for wanting it banned. Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it. Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake."
I re-posting from earlier because I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why the Tories would want to resurrect this squalid activity- it serves no political purpose for them, and will not pass a HoC vote, even with a Tory majority of 50. The only thing I can think of is that the pro hunting lobby is putting in some serious cash into the marginals- I know Blackwood in Oxford is a beneficiary. Money buys politicians. Not quite a news story, but very dispiriting nevertheless.
How about recreational fishing? Many people think it is vile, disgusting and cruel (even (or especially) if the fish are thrown back.
Surely your deeply 'moral' stance will embrace a ban on fishing?
Oh Josias. It was just such an argument that lead to my ex-wife ejecting my father from our home, following furious disagreement. He's never risked sleeping under my roof ever again, though the ex-wife has been gone these past eight years.
People generally do not like to be told that they think otherwise to their stated beliefs. Though you may draw a logical equivalence between recreational fishing and hunting foxes with hounds, many people do not. Insisting that the two are logically equivalent is likely to lead to years of acrimony. Be ye warned.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Many Kippers support hunting; Farage is happy to be seen at hunt meets, and supports the Tory plan to repeal the ban albeit on libertarian grounds.
In my interview to be a candidate, part of the process was a mock radio interview where the guy fired questions at me to trip me up/test my knowledge of the policies. Fox Hunting came up and when I said my honest opinion he said what you just did. I just said just because we agree on immigration and the EU doesn't mean we have to agree on every issue.
Naturally, there are differing opinions within the party on this issue (I don't have any problem with fox-hunting).
UKIP's strongest areas aren't particularly rural heartlands where hunting is practised.
The only animals I never fancied keeping were sheep - they're so stupid, and seem to delight in falling upsidedown into ditches or breaking their legs in rabbit holes whilst casually wandering about.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
They are probably on a par, when the carotid artery is cut through, blood pressure in the brain should fall rapidly. To be fair, I think if halal and shechita slaughter us done correctly it should be almost as humane as pre-stunning which is quite probably neither as instantaneous as we'd like it to be or 100% effective.
I have a friend who worked on a salmon farm, and he tells stories of things still being 'alive' that make you cringe. One time a salmon had gone through being topped and tailed, opened up, all the guts got rid off, and still jumped off a table! The girl who it happened to ran out screaming never to return. It's not very nice -that's the reality of what we eat and how we live.
Its the reality of how pretty much all animals live. They are all on the food chain and live in perpetual fear of the next predator up. For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
Yes, that's my view. We should absolutely look to not manufacture cruelty. But I would see personally no contradiction in raising pigs organically for meat on a small scale farm, or keeping them as pets or small scale rotunders.
Agree about sheep, but lambs seem to be more bright. Have been bottle feeding at weekends some 'joey lambs' from sets of triplets at a neighbour's farm. Very lively they are and can smell milk in a bottle a good distance away.
And that is on top of our £50 billion commitment to build High Speed 2 – the new North-South railway linking up London with the West Midlands, Leeds and Manchester – and develop High Speed 3 to join up the North. We will back scientific and technical strengths by creating new institutions such as Health North; the Royce Institute for Advanced Materials in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield; the National Centre for Ageing Science and Innovation in Newcastle; the Cognitive Computing centre at Daresbury; and by making investments in energy research in Blackpool, Cumbria and Thornton�
True or false?
Sunil's trip over the Easter weekend to Amsterdam via Brussels on the Eurostar and the TGV-style Thalys service has made him think again about his opposition to HS2.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
The only animals I never fancied keeping were sheep - they're so stupid, and seem to delight in falling upsidedown into ditches or breaking their legs in rabbit holes whilst casually wandering about.
Page 20 of the Tory manifesto looks like it's there for you.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
Them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, killin' animals in some horrible foreign way.
They should kill them in a proper British way or just sod off back to Bangladesh.
Yep, the UKIP manifesto just writes itself...
It's unpleasant posts like that which make Tories like me wonder if we are wearing the right colour rosette. Seems some of the nasty party haven't moved to the kippers yet.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.
Who insulted anyone? Or used slogans?
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
"Jesus that sounds like a load of shite" - No, nothing insulting there are all.
You didn't make any point to argue, save that in your opinion tradition was less important that foxes, which is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence or argument with which people may or may not agree.
Personally I think its cant, thousands of foxes die "naturally" in unpleasant circumstances every year, you don't propose a National Save The Fox program, with retirement homes for elderly foxes, hence your argument boils down to you wanting to such things to happen out of your sight, which means its about your personal comfort and nothing to do with foxes.
Which is of course leaving aside the unpleasant outcomes of most alternative ways of controlling the fox population, which farmers will do with substantially more vigour without the income from the hunts on their land.
Lots of assumptions, guesses and general rubbish from you there, you may as well talk to yourself if you are going to do that.
I do help urban foxes suffering from mange, and hunts do happen out of my sight anyway, so its not adding to or lessening my discomfort either way. I don't advocate a ban on hunting I just think people that defend or glorify it are uncaring, ignorant fools. But we all have our moments
I have to admit I'm more than a little disappointed by the unveiling of our manifesto this morning. I'm very opposed to RTB as it is just going to add to problems - not solve them. And it's already unravelling rather badly under scrutiny with senior Tories struggling to provide a credible defence. The fox hunting stuff seems unnecessary and dangerous ground. The minimum wage policy is a good one but is being lost in the noise of these other things.
If our mission is to try and put Miliband in number 10 then the Conservative manifesto is a good solid start. I'm worried.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?
That reminds me of the 'Labour's young princes striding the battlefield' article. Has anyone got a link to that - it's always good for a laugh.
The only animals I never fancied keeping were sheep - they're so stupid, and seem to delight in falling upsidedown into ditches or breaking their legs in rabbit holes whilst casually wandering about.
Page 20 of the Tory manifesto looks like it's there for you.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
Them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, killin' animals in some horrible foreign way.
They should kill them in a proper British way or just sod off back to Bangladesh.
Yep, the UKIP manifesto just writes itself...
It's unpleasant posts like that which make Tories like me wonder if we are wearing the right colour rosette. Seems some of the nasty party haven't moved to the kippers yet.
I'm starting to wonder if James Bond is really Brian Coleman.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?
That reminds me of the 'Labour's young princes striding the battlefield' article. Has anyone got a link to that - it's always good for a laugh.
"I wish people would not package anti fox hunting into some wider kind of anti rural narrative - as if there is some kind of exterior motive for wanting it banned. Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it. Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake."
I re-posting from earlier because I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why the Tories would want to resurrect this squalid activity- it serves no political purpose for them, and will not pass a HoC vote, even with a Tory majority of 50. The only thing I can think of is that the pro hunting lobby is putting in some serious cash into the marginals- I know Blackwood in Oxford is a beneficiary. Money buys politicians. Not quite a news story, but very dispiriting nevertheless.
How about recreational fishing? Many people think it is vile, disgusting and cruel (even (or especially) if the fish are thrown back.
Surely your deeply 'moral' stance will embrace a ban on fishing?
Oh Josias. It was just such an argument that lead to my ex-wife ejecting my father from our home, following furious disagreement. He's never risked sleeping under my roof ever again, though the ex-wife has been gone these past eight years.
People generally do not like to be told that they think otherwise to their stated beliefs. Though you may draw a logical equivalence between recreational fishing and hunting foxes with hounds, many people do not. Insisting that the two are logically equivalent is likely to lead to years of acrimony. Be ye warned.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
Them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, killin' animals in some horrible foreign way.
They should kill them in a proper British way or just sod off back to Bangladesh.
Yep, the UKIP manifesto just writes itself...
It's unpleasant posts like that which make Tories like me wonder if we are wearing the right colour rosette. Seems some of the nasty party haven't moved to the kippers yet.
I'm starting to wonder if James Bond is really Brian Coleman.
The quick death of being caught and mauled by a dozen dogs sounds more humane that being hung upside-down and drained of your blood until you pass out and die.
If we can allow Halal and Kosher methods of slow death then fox hunting seems to be on a par.
Them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, killin' animals in some horrible foreign way.
They should kill them in a proper British way or just sod off back to Bangladesh.
Yep, the UKIP manifesto just writes itself...
It's unpleasant posts like that which make Tories like me wonder if we are wearing the right colour rosette. Seems some of the nasty party haven't moved to the kippers yet.
I'm starting to wonder if James Bond is really Brian Coleman.
I cant imagine any Arsenal striker of the last 30 years falling for James Bond's chat up technique.
"I wish people would not package anti fox hunting into some wider kind of anti rural narrative - as if there is some kind of exterior motive for wanting it banned. Fox hunting by hounds is vile, cruel, disgusting- a sport where an animal is hunted by a pack of dogs and ripped apart at the end. Even the Italians think its cruel- they use dogs for driving the animal out of it's cover, but they shoot the animal at the end and then eat it. Fox hunting is just killing barbarically for killings sake."
I re-posting from earlier because I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why the Tories would want to resurrect this squalid activity- it serves no political purpose for them, and will not pass a HoC vote, even with a Tory majority of 50. The only thing I can think of is that the pro hunting lobby is putting in some serious cash into the marginals- I know Blackwood in Oxford is a beneficiary. Money buys politicians. Not quite a news story, but very dispiriting nevertheless.
How about recreational fishing? Many people think it is vile, disgusting and cruel (even (or especially) if the fish are thrown back.
Surely your deeply 'moral' stance will embrace a ban on fishing?
Oh Josias. It was just such an argument that lead to my ex-wife ejecting my father from our home, following furious disagreement. He's never risked sleeping under my roof ever again, though the ex-wife has been gone these past eight years.
People generally do not like to be told that they think otherwise to their stated beliefs. Though you may draw a logical equivalence between recreational fishing and hunting foxes with hounds, many people do not. Insisting that the two are logically equivalent is likely to lead to years of acrimony. Be ye warned.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Are there rat hunts then?
My cousins and uncle are Polish, I love them, and I also don't think British people are any better or worse than people from any other country
The fox hunting stuff seems unnecessary and dangerous ground.
I personally don't care about fox hunting on way or the other, but I would dearly like to see some signs of integrity from those that purport to lead us. Cameron did a deal with the Countryside Alliance, their ground army for a free vote on Hunting. He did the same in 2010 and then welched on it, he should do as he promised this time. It's a free vote, so if there is no support for it in the country, it will fail, that's life.
Once he has done that he can make a promise on immigration that a) is technically possible to keep even with a full majority and b) he actually plans to keep.
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?
That reminds me of the 'Labour's young princes striding the battlefield' article. Has anyone got a link to that - it's always good for a laugh.
Thanks!
'The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.'
Do they have a problem with Polish ants comin' over 'ere, takin' their jobs and congestin' all them motorways?
Are the schools and maternity wards all full of Polish ants in headscarves?
Is there any rabble-rousing ant whose face looks like it's melting who's always filmed pretending to drink a pint and who won't let anyone audit his expenses?
So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?
That reminds me of the 'Labour's young princes striding the battlefield' article. Has anyone got a link to that - it's always good for a laugh.
Thanks!
'The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.'
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Are there rat hunts then?
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.
Comments
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I had great hopes for him back in 2010 but sadly he has proved to be almost invisible. Labour will recapture this seat with ease.
For the most part only animals that are husbanded by humans can expect to live pretty stress free - except those caught by foxes.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
Lots of misplaced sympathy to go about, it seems.
OT, does anyone else think Natalie Bennett is saying 'Robert Wood Tax' rather than 'Robin Hood Tax' on World at One?
I think you also challenged a poster rather aggressively to say something to your face last night too.
They need a >4% swing from UKIP since last July...
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/thurrock/
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thurrock/winning-party
Apparently it is due to the fact that male ants only have half the chromosomes - it would rather like a human male only having 23 instead of 46 - so all ant sperm from one male is genetically identical. Thus 50% of the worker DNA (from their dad) is the same and the additional DNA from their mum means that they have more DNA in common with their sisters than with either of their parents.
Richard Dawkins said it so it must be true.
The LD surge inevitably helped the Tories take northern marginals I didn't expect them to get, and with that certain reversal of 2010 LDs back to Labour, there isn't a hope in hell of the Tories retaining many of them. The slight cause for optimism caused by Ashcroft predicting that Pendle remains Tory (doubtful I'd say) and Rossendale, South Ribble too close to call does not make me waver. I am confident all these, perhaps not S Ribble, will go back Labour.
The Conservative Party is as repellent as ever up here, and it was the strength of the LDs that handed them seats in 2010, not vast swathes of folk shifting from Labour to Tory.
Perhaps they feel that they can't compete with Sporting's belated reductions on their Con & Lab spreads from a greedy 6 seats to a much fairer 4 seats.
I'm on for pennies with PP @ 9/2 (Oct 13) and 11/2 (Mar 15).
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Both manifestos are underwhelming - Labour's more so...
PS - the mention of fox-hunting and Tories in the same sentence could be fatally damaging. I can't believe how this got through the election 'committee'.
I confess to cooking a mallard duck I found behind the front door one morning.
How they got it through the cat flap and dragged it 50ft was a feat of ingenuity.
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
A better approach for Labour would be to focus on the Conservatives' lack of credibility for delivering nice things, given the last five years' grind, and using the funding gap as a way of showing that they won't in practice happen.
In fact, one day, I may do both.
Any debate on spending will be met with "Nicola has to sign off your budget, and she wants another 180 billion..."
Nature is what it is, and it isn't nice or comforting at times.. as for fox hunting. I am not really one for calling for a ban on it, just have my opinions of people that think its all a bit of fun
They wasted 5yrs reinforcing their own profligacy. Too late now. Some may think that Tories *won't* do it because they're EVIL - but that's another matter.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
What a prospect... Please do give me fair warning in advance, so I can be sure not to, er, miss out.
You didn't make any point to argue, save that in your opinion tradition was less important that foxes, which is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence or argument with which people may or may not agree.
Personally I think its cant, thousands of foxes die "naturally" in unpleasant circumstances every year, you don't propose a National Save The Fox program, with retirement homes for elderly foxes, hence your argument boils down to you wanting to such things to happen out of your sight, which means its about your personal comfort and nothing to do with foxes.
Which is of course leaving aside the unpleasant outcomes of most alternative ways of controlling the fox population, which farmers will do with substantially more vigour without the income from the hunts on their land.
I'm doing it now.
Vegetarianism, animal rights and ethical life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WcnqUwLM
Agree about sheep, but lambs seem to be more bright. Have been bottle feeding at weekends some 'joey lambs' from sets of triplets at a neighbour's farm. Very lively they are and can smell milk in a bottle a good distance away.
They should kill them in a proper British way or just sod off back to Bangladesh.
Yep, the UKIP manifesto just writes itself...
People generally do not like to be told that they think otherwise to their stated beliefs. Though you may draw a logical equivalence between recreational fishing and hunting foxes with hounds, many people do not. Insisting that the two are logically equivalent is likely to lead to years of acrimony. Be ye warned.
UKIP's strongest areas aren't particularly rural heartlands where hunting is practised.
Sunil's trip over the Easter weekend to Amsterdam via Brussels on the Eurostar and the TGV-style Thalys service has made him think again about his opposition to HS2.
(or should that be "ewe".... - i'll get me coat)
Obvious rogue.
I do help urban foxes suffering from mange, and hunts do happen out of my sight anyway, so its not adding to or lessening my discomfort either way. I don't advocate a ban on hunting I just think people that defend or glorify it are uncaring, ignorant fools. But we all have our moments
If our mission is to try and put Miliband in number 10 then the Conservative manifesto is a good solid start. I'm worried.
Updated unscientific don't-rely-on-this BenM 7th May vote share predictor (changes from last time I did it a couple of weeks ago):
Con 35% (-1)
Lab 32% (-1)
Lib Dem 11% (+1)
UKIP 11% (-)
Others 11% (+1)
Seats
Con 287 (+1)
Lab 266 (-4)
Lib Dem 27 (-)
Green 1 (+1)
UKIP 1 (-1)
SNP 48 (+4)
Plaid 2 (-1)
NI 18
Con chances of being largest party now >65% (was >50%).
It's all over for Ed.
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Your wife was not a fish, by any chance? ;-)
Con + DUP + LD = 323
My cousins and uncle are Polish, I love them, and I also don't think British people are any better or worse than people from any other country
Have you been on the sauce? Or the roids?
Once he has done that he can make a promise on immigration that a) is technically possible to keep even with a full majority and b) he actually plans to keep.
'The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.'
Are the schools and maternity wards all full of Polish ants in headscarves?
Is there any rabble-rousing ant whose face looks like it's melting who's always filmed pretending to drink a pint and who won't let anyone audit his expenses?
Bad news - I am back.