Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
We shall see.
A rapproachment between USA and Iran is what is needed against ISIL. The Iranians now seem quite moderate compared with the psychos of Islamic State.
You constantly claim the English no longer understand Scottish politics - and you do so quite convincingly. By the same token, Nats must accept they no longer understand English politics.
The resonance of the Vote Miliband Get Salmond attack was physically palpable, down here, and countless anecdotes back it up (talk to Labour canvassers). It registered with English voters like, probably, nothing else in the election. This might explain why Cybernats are now recycling the Miliband-in-chest-pocket Tory poster meme, to their own ends (and it also proves that might have been the best election poster since Labour's Double Whammy).
This should please you. Scots and English politics are no longer easily interchangeable. It's what you want.
It was physically palpable because it was real (about 17% of people "less likely to vote Labour") so it is not surprising that people heard it on the doorstep.
But it was also NOT the reason because 14% of people were "more likely to vote Labour" even with Labour refusing to countenance a deal with the SNP.
This is the only polling evidence and it supports BOTH your claim about a real "feeling on the ground" and the reality that it did not influence the election result.
Yawn. Shut up now. Thanks.
Out of interest, when you wake up with the hangover tomorrow will you remember selling out to Apple?
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
There IS evidence. It says it did not make a meaningful difference to the election outcome.
Talking of evidence . . . where is your evidence for the deluded claim that you made earlier that: "The level of panic the SNP are currently causing amongst the Tory ranks is becoming quite apparent."
Have you worked out the logical fallacy in your earlier statement yet?
The normal logic for qualifying support for a point of view would be : -
From worst to best.
What some guy down the pub thinks (or SeanT in current state). Some opinion piece in the press Opinion Polling Double blind empirical sampling.
Note that nowhere does the concept "what I think and what consolidates my own bias and beliefs" appear. You seem to be in the typical PB Tory camp of believing this over all other things.
The normal logic for qualifying support for a point of view would be : -
Opinion Polling
The opinion pollsters just recorded the worst result in history. Every one of them was catastrophically wrong, possibly with career ending consequences
Gawd, they can't even get a police force to function properly.
Good job they're not running an independent country. It would be Northern Europe's very own McGreece.
Add it to unemployment heading the wrong way under the Nat regime and factor in the next big iceberg - Scottish school standards - you can see why they want a big dead squirrel or fox to distract from their failings.
The SNP have a longstanding position of not voting on matters that purely affect England – such as foxhunting south of the border, for example – and we stand by that. Where any issue is genuinely “English-only”, with no impact on Scotland, the case for Evel can be made.
Can you find us the bit where Nicola says "does not apply in July"?
Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
We shall see.
Given the main danger is now ISIS at present then a rapprochement with Iran is needed to help defeat them. However, Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism, including Hezbollah and Hamas and an Iranian nuclear bomb would obviously be a threat to Israel and the region so the agreement must be adhered to and eyes not taken off the ball!
I don't pretend to follow Scottish politics, but what is the rationale behind the SNP's increase in support, yet the lack of Scots support for independence? On the face of it it seems illogical.
Is it an anti-Labour sentiment?
No, it's an anti-Con/LD/Labour sentiment.
If you are correct, being merely a protest vote doesn't bode well for the SNP long term.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
Well, it's not who gets there first, but who stakes out the best claim once they get there after all.
Well quite.
There is a strong argument that the "Mac" experience was invented by Xerox, but it is indisputable that it was successfully developed and marketed by Apple
Well George Eaton must have O level maths , that's for sure.
Those who might be crowing now need to think twice.. if Nicola Sturgeon things she is and is desribed as brave as Ed Miliband (News Int et al)(as he was on here in many threads) then lets see how it works out in the end.
Politics is not short termism as it was with Brown.. it really isn't.
Another Tory MP who has always been against fox hunting is former Basildon MP David Amess. He's also a Catholic originally from the East End although I don't known if there's any connection between the two.
Farron is an extremely good constituency MP , he is very popular locally, and he works hard at it, in an area that was Con, and is a natural con area. I think in this case the constituents vote for the man, not the party , or the politics. I do not think the local appeal will necessarily translate across to a national leader. Meanwhile across the border Morecambe and Lunesdale, Lennox Boyd was OK, but got swept away in the labour landslide, Geraldine Smith got swept in, did her best, and got chucked out in 2010, David Morris is a no body,got re elected, actually with an increase, but does not have anything like the local prescence of Farron. Farron will win, but may cost him locally.
Indeed, but accept he will retain his seat, if he won it in 2015 he has it for life!
He may have it for life, but it might be a very lonely life
Tom Brake 1,068 Alistair Carmichael 817 Nick Clegg 2,353 Tim Farron 8,949 Norman Lamb 4,043 Greg Mulholland 2,907 John Pugh 1,322 Mark Williams 2,088
At least two of those are dead men walking already. I guess Lamb should cling on, maybee Mulholland. The rest could be gone.
Farron offers a clear shift left from Clegg, indeed on some issues he is arguably left of Salmond and Sturgeon, he is unlikely to return them to government but should build up their campaigning base again
This fabled campaign base which didn't materialise in 2015 and, judging by the loss of seats in 2010 appears to have crumbled well before the coalition misadventure.
10 new members per constituency won't really make much difference if they're already a hollowed out shell.
The membership numbers have gone up by more than 20 per constituency, and Farron made the reasonable target of 20+ seats in 2020 at the hustings last week, starting from a ground up pavement politics route. Lamb planned much the same.
A poor or ineffective Labour leader would help a bit.
Can the Lib Dems revive in Devon and Cornwall ? That is where the Tories won their majority.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
"ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else"
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
40 Tories against fox hunting would put the vote on a knife-edge if the SNP abstained or were barred from taking part. Could go either way. Some Unionists might support the change plus one or two others like Kate Hoey.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
To be fair, Cameron is playing his cards well. I am not sure he really cares about hunting, even EVEL. But he can tell his loonies that he tried.
Farron is an extremely good constituency MP , he is very popular locally, and he works hard at it, in an area that was Con, and is a natural con area. I think in this case the constituents vote for the man, not the party , or the politics. I do not think the local appeal will necessarily translate across to a national leader. Meanwhile across the border Morecambe and Lunesdale, Lennox Boyd was OK, but got swept away in the labour landslide, Geraldine Smith got swept in, did her best, and got chucked out in 2010, David Morris is a no body,got re elected, actually with an increase, but does not have anything like the local prescence of Farron. Farron will win, but may cost him locally.
Indeed, but accept he will retain his seat, if he won it in 2015 he has it for life!
He may have it for life, but it might be a very lonely life
Tom Brake 1,068 Alistair Carmichael 817 Nick Clegg 2,353 Tim Farron 8,949 Norman Lamb 4,043 Greg Mulholland 2,907 John Pugh 1,322 Mark Williams 2,088
At least two of those are dead men walking already. I guess Lamb should cling on, maybee Mulholland. The rest could be gone.
Farron offers a clear shift left from Clegg, indeed on some issues he is arguably left of Salmond and Sturgeon, he is unlikely to return them to government but should build up their campaigning base again
This fabled campaign base which didn't materialise in 2015 and, judging by the loss of seats in 2010 appears to have crumbled well before the coalition misadventure.
10 new members per constituency won't really make much difference if they're already a hollowed out shell.
The membership numbers have gone up by more than 20 per constituency, and Farron made the reasonable target of 20+ seats in 2020 at the hustings last week, starting from a ground up pavement politics route. Lamb planned much the same.
A poor or ineffective Labour leader would help a bit.
Can the Lib Dems revive in Devon and Cornwall ? That is where the Tories won their majority.
I think that we should watch the local elections to find out. They seem a better forecaster than the pollsters.
Quite. In true barnacle fashion the smarter move would have been to have had the vote, lost it, manfully cope with the grief and carry on though. Don't know why they didn't.
David Cameron is a keen foxhunter, and actually wants the Hunting Act amended or repealed.
Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
We shall see.
Given the main danger is now ISIS at present then a rapprochement with Iran is needed to help defeat them. However, Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism, including Hezbollah and Hamas and an Iranian nuclear bomb would obviously be a threat to Israel and the region so the agreement must be adhered to and eyes not taken off the ball!
Sean, the idea that this deal will bring in Iran from the cold is how many of my former colleagues at State are pushing it.
To me, that is very much a rose-tinted glasses approach. Sure, a deal like this is a sine qua non for starting the process of rapprochement and re-civilization of Iran, but it is far from a guarantee. IMO, the more likely outcome is that Iran carries on just as it was, having pocketed the rewards of ostensibly giving up its NW ambitions. As soon as the hawks in the US point out that Iran is reneging on key aspects of the deal, vested interests will rubbish the intel.
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Not my point. The thing is that sympathy for hunting and other traditional Tory preoccupations is thin on the ground in marginals. In the same way, Labour MPs in marginals have to avoid seeming preoccupied with things like the miners' strike and trade union rights if they've just won a Tory marginal. It's not about pretending to be on the other side, but avoiding the impression that you're obsessed with stuff that doesn't have a local basis.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
"ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else"
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Thank goodness we have your superior expertise on the subject as a person who has presumably been elected to the House of Commons more times than Nick Palmer.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
Amazing how you have a Conservative contact who will tell you such things about foxhunting, yet not one who would tell you during the election that they had not given up on Broxtowe.
You were either a liar or hysterically deluded. As such, your anecdata should be taken with a Lot's wife of salt.
When Nicola Sturgeon promised her party would play a constructive role in Westminster politics most people assumed she was speaking on behalf of Scots, not foxes. It has taken barely two months for the truth to emerge. Given the chance to embarrass the government, even on a matter that has nothing to do with Scotland, the SNP will take it.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
"ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else"
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Thank goodness we have your superior expertise on the subject as a person who has presumably been elected to the House of Commons more times than Nick Palmer.
Hmmmm that expertise lost him his seat and he did not regain it either despite telling us all in 2015 that Anna Soubry and her team in Broxtowe had pretty much given up. A porkie pie of epic proportions..
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Not my point. The thing is that sympathy for hunting and other traditional Tory preoccupations is thin on the ground in marginals. In the same way, Labour MPs in marginals have to avoid seeming preoccupied with things like the miners' strike and trade union rights if they've just won a Tory marginal. It's not about pretending to be on the other side, but avoiding the impression that you're obsessed with stuff that doesn't have a local basis.
Well the Telegraph seems to think she would vote FOR, and it didn't seem to do her any harm.
Sticking to what you believe in counts more than weasel words IMHO.
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person. It is, of course, the same philosophy which underpinned the criminalisation of homosexuality, heresy, blasphemy, suicide and lotteries among others. The 2004 Act is not liberal, quite the reverse.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
"ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else"
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Thank goodness we have your superior expertise on the subject as a person who has presumably been elected to the House of Commons more times than Nick Palmer.
Hmmmm that expertise lost him his seat and he did not regain it either despite telling us all in 2015 that Anna Soubry and her team in Broxtowe had pretty much given up. A porkie pie of epic proportions..
Given up? Things were going so badly for the Tories in Broxtowe, that she wouldn't even go to the hustings and debate with Palmer.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It is definitely a sign that more Tories are developing human instincts !
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
"ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else"
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Thank goodness we have your superior expertise on the subject as a person who has presumably been elected to the House of Commons more times than Nick Palmer.
Hmmmm that expertise lost him his seat and he did not regain it either despite telling us all in 2015 that Anna Soubry and her team in Broxtowe had pretty much given up. A porkie pie of epic proportions..
Given up? Things were going so badly for the Tories in Broxtowe, that she wouldn't even go to the hustings and debate with Palmer.
That was a load of bowlocks too. Just a load of spin. I expect Soubry thought her time best spent elsewhere. The underdog always cries foul, as did Nick Palmer.
I just want to remind people that NPXMP says he never posts anything on here he knows not to be true. That's been tested to breaking point.
Eh? It was always going to be a free vote. Not a 'key measure' by any stretch of the imagination.
But, yes, a majority of 12 - especially when there's a disreputable and dishonest block of 56 blatantly unprincipled troublemakers seeking to wreck as much as they can - is a small majority: compromises need to be made, and Cameron needs to choose his battles.
But look on the bright side: it might easily have been a minority Miliband government in thrall to the SNP shysters.
'Tories have now pulled votes on fox hunting, EVEL and Human Rights Act - proof that a majority of 12 is barely a majority at all.'
Complete rubbish.
Human Rights act is scheduled for next year,government made the mistake in believing Sturgeon,won't happen again and we now have clear proof that a heavy duty version of EVEL is required.
I guess payback will be to stuff the SNP with FFA and then they will have something to genuinely whine about
The new Conservative government has tried to rush through some of the most contentious legislation in its manifesto - proposals it could not action in the last parliament in coalition - before its majority starts to be eroded, and the rebellions grow. That can work - and, personally, I've been impressed at the new government's energy - but not if it's not cognisant of political tactics.
On the specifics: the delay on the Human Rights Act is explainable by the fact the Tories themselves were surprised, along with everyone else, that they actually won an outright majority. The deep thinking hadn't been done on the proposals, and a delay was not only needed but sensible to get the legislation right. It's about good government.
EVEL will pass once the proposals are worked up properly - I expect some Labour MPs and Liberal Democrat MPs to back sensible proposals. But, personally, I don't think the fact Chris Grayling is leading it helps.
Both reforms are electorally popular.
That leaves fox-hunting. It's the most contentious of the lot whilst, perversely, being one of the least significant, particularly when placed against such major constitutional change.
The votes are there in England and Wales to amend the Act, but - such is the emotion and angst surrounding it - that proponents of reform know they'll only get one shot at it.
Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
We shall see.
Given the main danger is now ISIS at present then a rapprochement with Iran is needed to help defeat them. However, Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism, including Hezbollah and Hamas and an Iranian nuclear bomb would obviously be a threat to Israel and the region so the agreement must be adhered to and eyes not taken off the ball!
Sean, the idea that this deal will bring in Iran from the cold is how many of my former colleagues at State are pushing it.
To me, that is very much a rose-tinted glasses approach. Sure, a deal like this is a sine qua non for starting the process of rapprochement and re-civilization of Iran, but it is far from a guarantee. IMO, the more likely outcome is that Iran carries on just as it was, having pocketed the rewards of ostensibly giving up its NW ambitions. As soon as the hawks in the US point out that Iran is reneging on key aspects of the deal, vested interests will rubbish the intel.
If we have a Tory Government that doesn't actually do the stuff that they said they wanted to, perhaps it won't be too bad.
The Tories are getting through the important stuff like scrapping Labour's death duties and upping the minimum wage to £9/hr (Something that will benefit quite alot of people I know personally).
The SNP are handily preventing them retoxing themselves over fox hunting too.Where do Labour stand on the important questions, have a position on tax credits yet ?
On the economy, the government is setting the agenda, and slowly tacking the country to the Right.
On cultural, values and social politics, much less so.
Ten years ago Tory MP Alan Duncan said there were only 5 or 6 Tories against fox hunting (including of course Ann Widdecombe). Is it really "dozens" now?
It's about 25-30 Tory MPs now. Far more urban/semi-urban Tory constituencies in 2015, compared to the strong rural backbone the party had in 2001-2005.
Also, some Tories tend to go wobbly, over time, on reversing non-economic left-wing policy.
The real scandal is the amount of time taken up by the fox hunting debate over the last 10-15 years when the likes of Rotherham were going on at the same time.
How many years was it between the set-up of the RSPCA and the NSPCC?
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
40 Tories against fox hunting would put the vote on a knife-edge if the SNP abstained or were barred from taking part. Could go either way. Some Unionists might support the change plus one or two others like Kate Hoey.
And what is important about the status of foxhunting in England is the opinions of English mps. Thats all, it's their job, not that of Scottish mps. Anyone want to argue with that? The English mps can vote how they like as far as I am concerned.
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Not my point. The thing is that sympathy for hunting and other traditional Tory preoccupations is thin on the ground in marginals. In the same way, Labour MPs in marginals have to avoid seeming preoccupied with things like the miners' strike and trade union rights if they've just won a Tory marginal. It's not about pretending to be on the other side, but avoiding the impression that you're obsessed with stuff that doesn't have a local basis.
Didn't you just lose a marginal?
Inheritance tax cut, human rights reform and EVEL are all electorally popular amongst English swing voters, or - at the very least - the Tory positions are more popular than the Labour positions.
I grant that foxhunting is an exception but I suspect that the public's view is far more "meh" and ambiguous that some of the dodgy polling numbers that are bandied about would lead you to believe.
The real scandal is the amount of time taken up by the fox hunting debate over the last 10-15 years when the likes of Rotherham were going on at the same time.
How many years was it between the set-up of the RSPCA and the NSPCC?
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
Animal lovers.. so much so there are loads of prosecutions for people who mistreat animals.. and we have our own RSPCA who put animals down.. I wouldn't give the RSPCA a sou, not even a tenth of a sou.. Nation of animal lovers is not true.
The Tory MP who I talked to last week before the row intensified reckoned the figure was around 40 (and he quoted Duncan's figure as well). He said the party had changed very significantly in his time (he's been around for decades) with the influx of liberal suburbanites. They don't see that wanting free markets and low taxes - as they do - has anything to do with killing foxes, opposing gay marriage, and other things that they see as odd preoccupations of the old guard.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person. It is, of course, the same philosophy which underpinned the criminalisation of homosexuality, heresy, blasphemy, suicide and lotteries among others. The 2004 Act is not liberal, quite the reverse.
There's a lot in that.
If ID cards had passed into law in 2007-2008, would the Tories now be promising (or able) to repeal it?
The real scandal is the amount of time taken up by the fox hunting debate over the last 10-15 years when the likes of Rotherham were going on at the same time.
How many years was it between the set-up of the RSPCA and the NSPCC?
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
The campaign against fox hunting is less about Animal Welfare, more about Class Warfare.
Many would think differently about the cuddly ickle foxy woxys, if they were scraping pet rabbit remains off the decking, or chucking headless chicken carcasses into the bin on a regular basis.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person.
"...a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person." Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
The real scandal is the amount of time taken up by the fox hunting debate over the last 10-15 years when the likes of Rotherham were going on at the same time.
How many years was it between the set-up of the RSPCA and the NSPCC?
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
Animal lovers.. so much so there are loads of prosecutions for people who mistreat animals.. and we have our own RSPCA who put animals down.. I wouldn't give the RSPCA a sou, not even a tenth of a sou.. Nation of animal lovers is not true.
Neither would I donate to the RSPCA, but I think that those who wantonly mistreat animals here are in a small minority.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person.
"...a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person." Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
Yes - that's the issue. Whether (and if so, how much) animal suffering should be accepted for human entertainment. LIAMT defines rights adhering exclusively to humans. Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations, but draw the line at doing it for sport.
I won't bother to reply to the ad hominem gang - maybe they'll get over winning sometime, maybe not. Shrug.
Incidentally, if Obama can really bring in Iran from the cold, and say F Off to the absurd Netanyahu in the meantime, then I will take my non existent hat off to him, and say he has earned that Nobel Peace Prize, after the event.
Recivilising the great nation of Persia is an almost measureless prize. It will, inter alia, help us to defeat ISIS.
We shall see.
Bringing in Cuba from the cold too.
Whilst attempting to start a new cold war with Russia and China.
Still it is good to see that thug Netanyahu humiliated.
The original comment would have some substance if the Government had failed to get its Budget passed. The vote of fox hunting was hardly a "key measure" in any event. This is simply an understandably cautious approach, conserving voting strength for real "key measures".
Incidentally, the Greek crisis is still boiling. Tsipras has given a strong interview, but the IMF has raised the stakes, demanding that Europe cuts, extends or annually subsidises the debt to a much greater extent than has so far been agreed:
My guess is that Europe will kick that particular can down the road with subsidising it this year, to be reviewed when it's clear how the promised reforms are working out.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person.
"...a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person." Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
Yes - that's the issue. Whether (and if so, how much) animal suffering should be accepted for human entertainment. LIAMT defines rights adhering exclusively to humans. Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations, but draw the line at doing it for sport.
I won't bother to reply to the ad hominem gang - maybe they'll get over winning sometime, maybe not. Shrug.
The real scandal is the amount of time taken up by the fox hunting debate over the last 10-15 years when the likes of Rotherham were going on at the same time.
How many years was it between the set-up of the RSPCA and the NSPCC?
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
The campaign against fox hunting is less about Animal Welfare, more about Class Warfare.
Many would think differently about the cuddly ickle foxy woxys, if they were scraping pet rabbit remains off the decking, or chucking headless chicken carcasses into the bin on a regular basis.
Most animals spend most of their lives in perpetual fear of those lives. It's how they survive, and it's also reflective of nature and its food chain. There is no police force, justice system, NHS, or care for the elderly. Animals are born, the strong survive, as long as they are healthy and alert, they live, until they either killed, eaten or die of health problems.
I understand why some people are discomforted and disturbed by that. But there's really not much that can be done about it.
We live in a diverse eco-system on this planet. We are at the top of that system, often sculpted and of own making through agricultural management, and that requires choices on intervention and management.
The arguments and ethics on how best to do it are far more finely balanced and nuanced that the level of emotion that surrounds the debate usually allows for.
Sorry, I meant if the Tories had just come into government with a majority *now* and not been in government in 2010-2015, such that ID cards had been the established law of the land for the best part of 8 years.
The Hunting Act currently on the statue book (voted for by NickP) certainly can't be defended on the grounds of animal welfare. Combined with other legislation (also voted for by NickP), it means the poor foxes may be despatched with shotguns.
When you have an act of parliament introduced as a cynical ploy by a PM who cared nothing about the issue at all but simply wanted to appease the class-warfare ignorance of Labour MPs - and against the advice of his own independent inquiry - you can't really be surprised at the perversity of the outcome.
Sorry, I meant if the Tories had just come into government with a majority *now* and not been in government in 2010-2015, such that ID cards had been the established law of the land for the best part of 8 years.
They'd have repealed it. Quite apart from anything else, it would have been so unpopular by now that it would have been a free hit.
Why is the Tory party so obsessed about fox hunting? Why are we even talking about fox hunting? Who thinks that fox hunting should be high in a government's list of priorities?
There are so many things going around in the country and the world, why fox hunting ?
Incidentally, the Greek crisis is still boiling. Tsipras has given a strong interview, but the IMF has raised the stakes, demanding that Europe cuts, extends or annually subsidises the debt to a much greater extent than has so far been agreed:
My guess is that Europe will kick that particular can down the road with subsidising it this year, to be reviewed when it's clear how the promised reforms are working out.
The reforms will fail as usual, Tsipras will go down the toilet with them and the eurozone will continue it's periodic fits that remind people how nasty and useless the EU is.
At this rate the IN campaign will have to legislate not Fox Hunting but Vote Hunting for the EU referendum.
This was not about hunting. There is only one argument for the Scottish Nationalists’ decision to force the government to back down on England’s foxhunting laws. It should hasten the day when they never do such a thing again. Fans of their leader, Nicola Sturgeon, can only be saddened to see her falling for the trap of the Westminster political club.
The SNP’s reasons for dropping its normal refusal to vote on English matters are opportunistic and cynical.
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
I won't bother to reply to the ad hominem gang - maybe they'll get over winning sometime, maybe not. Shrug.
Best way to deal with it.
"We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies." Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
There is a growing trend towards authoritarianism in all political parties. This explains the increased support for the 2004 Act in the Tory Party. The philosophy of that tyrannical Act is that the majority has a right to prohibit on purely moral grounds a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person.
"...a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person." Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
Yes - that's the issue. Whether (and if so, how much) animal suffering should be accepted for human entertainment. LIAMT defines rights adhering exclusively to humans. Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations, but draw the line at doing it for sport.
I won't bother to reply to the ad hominem gang - maybe they'll get over winning sometime, maybe not. Shrug.
Which of dog, cock, bear is vermin?
None of them. Neither is a fox.
"The fox is sometimes incorrectly referred to as vermin. It is not, and never has been categorised as such by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the only body empowered to impose the term on a wild species."
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
Trump is Bush's major challenger it would seem for now
Its far too early in the cycle to decide that. If I were betting on this then general rule of thumb would be to lay whoever just spiked.
Agreed. Trump's support will collapse as soon as another more newsworthy candidate joins the chase, or until the campaign and debates really get underway. He may stick around until the end, simply because he can use his own money and enjoys the limelight. But he has not a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. In the meantime, he may or may not have betting value.
Just seen the "Like A Virgin" sequence from Moulin Rouge for the first time. Hilarious. Yet another film I've yet to see from start to finish without interruption.
The Hunting Act currently on the statue book (voted for by NickP) certainly can't be defended on the grounds of animal welfare. Combined with other legislation (also voted for by NickP), it means the poor foxes may be despatched with shotguns.
When you have an act of parliament introduced as a cynical ploy by a PM who cared nothing about the issue at all but simply wanted to appease the class-warfare ignorance of Labour MPs - and against the advice of his own independent inquiry - you can't really be surprised at the perversity of the outcome.
IIRC Blair didn't actually turn up for some of the later votes on the issue.
"...a harmless activity engaged in by consenting adults which harms no other person." Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
Of course, fox hunting harms the fox. Save for the deranged who believe animals ought to have the same rights as people, the only logical basis for prohibiting it is if you take the view that one should not cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
There aren't many bears around today, but the birthright of the people of England to engage in badger baiting, a sport requiring consummate skill and expertise to master, has been permanently removed by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, another damnable statute in need of urgent repeal.
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
"The House of Commons is to debate revised government proposals to give England's MPs a veto over English laws.
A final set of proposals will be drafted after the debate, with a delayed vote to be held in September.
The debate comes after a row over plans to change fox hunting laws in England and Wales, with a vote being axed after the SNP said it would oppose the move.
The SNP had previously said it would not vote on issues affecting England and Wales only."
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
Yet that is a logic for mandatory vegetarianism, since there is no need for the people of England to eat meat. Yet mandatory vegetarianism would be an unspeakable crime against liberty.
No it isn't. You're seeing this through the black and white filter of the law, rather than they grey area that is real life.
As Nick Palmer says down thread: "Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport."
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
'I just want to remind people that NPXMP says he never posts anything on here he knows not to be true. That's been tested to breaking point.'
We remember the weekly fantasy canvass returns, not to mention the mass of red Liberals that were going to vote for him, Soubry was too frightened to debate with him and his ground game was just awesome.
It was just a question if his majority was 3,000 / 5,000.
Photos of Pluto, a newly-discovered pentaquark, and (imminently) a new Liberal Democrat leader! What a week! This is almost as exciting as seeing Daniel Racliffe with no clothes on.
Why is the Tory party so obsessed about fox hunting? Why are we even talking about fox hunting? Who thinks that fox hunting should be high in a government's list of priorities?
There are so many things going around in the country and the world, why fox hunting ?
I see no evidence that it is high in their priorities. It is a manifesto commitment to address it, though.
As it turns out, I suspect it was also the best opportunity available to help the SNP embarrass themselves.
The originl Hunting Act (2004?) was followed a 1 million donation to Labour by the 'animal rights' lobby, and took up 700 hours of Parliamentatry Time that could have been used on something useful. I wonder what messes have been avoided later if the Lab back benchers had been paying attention properly in the earlier period?
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
Where as catching a fox with a couple of bits of buckshot and letting it die slowly and painfully of lead poisoning and infections over the next couple of weeks is perfectly acceptable ?
I see no evidence that it is high in their priorities. It is a manifesto commitment to address it, though.
Indeed, and it was promised to the Countryside Alliance as a quid pro quo with their help in getting out the rural vote. Bit shocking that a political party delivers on its promise eh ?
As Sir Humphery observed, its only the urban middle classes that get romantic about the countryside, and that is because they don't have to live in it.
Comments
Happy Ramadan:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/undercover-video-from-fallujah-shows-people-crucified-in-the-street-by-isis-for-eating-during-ramadan-10386426.html
It is "what is best for Scotland".
Giving Cameron the dockside hooker treatment certainly qualifies for that in the eyes of a great many voters in Scotland.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/police-scotland-999-call-handling-performance-unacceptable-and-bordering-on-life-threatening-1.886588
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/police-control-room-staff-told-to-log-calls-with-pen-and-paper-1.889692
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/m9-crash-call-officer-could-not-use-computer-system-1.889605
where is your evidence for the deluded claim that you made earlier that:
"The level of panic the SNP are currently causing amongst the Tory ranks is becoming quite apparent."
From worst to best.
What some guy down the pub thinks (or SeanT in current state).
Some opinion piece in the press
Opinion Polling
Double blind empirical sampling.
Note that nowhere does the concept "what I think and what consolidates my own bias and beliefs" appear. You seem to be in the typical PB Tory camp of believing this over all other things.
Good job they're not running an independent country. It would be Northern Europe's very own McGreece.
And you claim opinion polls as hard evidence
Bring back the ROFLcopter
ROFL. :-)
You also get more anti-hunting Tories when there's a Tory government, because people in ex-Labour marginals like the Kemptown MP really can't afford to be anything else. Marginal seats rarely have much hunting country in them, or even farming country.
Hang on, let me check the calendar...
Those who might be crowing now need to think twice.. if Nicola Sturgeon things she is and is desribed as brave as Ed Miliband (News Int et al)(as he was on here in many threads) then lets see how it works out in the end.
Politics is not short termism as it was with Brown.. it really isn't.
"Bollocks"
That's why you lost in Broxtowe. Irrespective of what Soubry might think about foxhunting.. Tory MP's in marginals don't have to pretend to be Labourish.
Greek PM says banks might not reopen until the bailout deal with the Eurozone is finalised, a process that could take several weeks"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11738150/Greece-news-live-Germans-back-Osbornes-fight-against-Juncker-plan-to-bail-out-Greece-as-IMF-calls-for-more-debt-relief.html
To me, that is very much a rose-tinted glasses approach. Sure, a deal like this is a sine qua non for starting the process of rapprochement and re-civilization of Iran, but it is far from a guarantee. IMO, the more likely outcome is that Iran carries on just as it was, having pocketed the rewards of ostensibly giving up its NW ambitions. As soon as the hawks in the US point out that Iran is reneging on key aspects of the deal, vested interests will rubbish the intel.
You were either a liar or hysterically deluded. As such, your anecdata should be taken with a Lot's wife of salt.
Nicola has shown the World she can't be trusted, and wasted it on an issue of no importance. That bodes well for any 'future negotiations'...
How did that work out for Syriza?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic
Sticking to what you believe in counts more than weasel words IMHO.
I just want to remind people that NPXMP says he never posts anything on here he knows not to be true. That's been tested to breaking point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11740151&cc=11644969
But, yes, a majority of 12 - especially when there's a disreputable and dishonest block of 56 blatantly unprincipled troublemakers seeking to wreck as much as they can - is a small majority: compromises need to be made, and Cameron needs to choose his battles.
But look on the bright side: it might easily have been a minority Miliband government in thrall to the SNP shysters.
On the specifics: the delay on the Human Rights Act is explainable by the fact the Tories themselves were surprised, along with everyone else, that they actually won an outright majority. The deep thinking hadn't been done on the proposals, and a delay was not only needed but sensible to get the legislation right. It's about good government.
EVEL will pass once the proposals are worked up properly - I expect some Labour MPs and Liberal Democrat MPs to back sensible proposals. But, personally, I don't think the fact Chris Grayling is leading it helps.
Both reforms are electorally popular.
That leaves fox-hunting. It's the most contentious of the lot whilst, perversely, being one of the least significant, particularly when placed against such major constitutional change.
The votes are there in England and Wales to amend the Act, but - such is the emotion and angst surrounding it - that proponents of reform know they'll only get one shot at it.
On cultural, values and social politics, much less so.
Also, some Tories tend to go wobbly, over time, on reversing non-economic left-wing policy.
The British are a nation of animal lovers. But we don't like (or care) about other people's kids nearly that much.
I think animals aid our natural stilted expression of empathy and emotion, because we really struggle with people.
Thats all, it's their job, not that of Scottish mps. Anyone want to argue with that? The English mps can vote how they like as far as I am concerned.
Inheritance tax cut, human rights reform and EVEL are all electorally popular amongst English swing voters, or - at the very least - the Tory positions are more popular than the Labour positions.
I grant that foxhunting is an exception but I suspect that the public's view is far more "meh" and ambiguous that some of the dodgy polling numbers that are bandied about would lead you to believe.
Right, I really must sign-off now. Goodnight.
If ID cards had passed into law in 2007-2008, would the Tories now be promising (or able) to repeal it?
Many would think differently about the cuddly ickle foxy woxys, if they were scraping pet rabbit remains off the decking, or chucking headless chicken carcasses into the bin on a regular basis.
Yes. no other person, but it harms (and causes suffering along the way) to another sentient creature.
By your logic (which I am happy to praise in the overwhelming majority of your other postings), you would be happy to bring back cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting.
hmmmmmm
In fact, they did repeal the watered-down version as their very first bill introduced in the new parliament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Documents_Act_2010
So what happens when Scots lobby English MPs to vote against an SNP line on their behalf?
I won't bother to reply to the ad hominem gang - maybe they'll get over winning sometime, maybe not. Shrug.
Still it is good to see that thug Netanyahu humiliated.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/14/greek-crisis-tsipras-political-backlash-bailout-osborne-uk-live
My guess is that Europe will kick that particular can down the road with subsidising it this year, to be reviewed when it's clear how the promised reforms are working out.
I understand why some people are discomforted and disturbed by that. But there's really not much that can be done about it.
We live in a diverse eco-system on this planet. We are at the top of that system, often sculpted and of own making through agricultural management, and that requires choices on intervention and management.
The arguments and ethics on how best to do it are far more finely balanced and nuanced that the level of emotion that surrounds the debate usually allows for.
When you have an act of parliament introduced as a cynical ploy by a PM who cared nothing about the issue at all but simply wanted to appease the class-warfare ignorance of Labour MPs - and against the advice of his own independent inquiry - you can't really be surprised at the perversity of the outcome.
Why are we even talking about fox hunting?
Who thinks that fox hunting should be high in a government's list of priorities?
There are so many things going around in the country and the world, why fox hunting ?
At this rate the IN campaign will have to legislate not Fox Hunting but Vote Hunting for the EU referendum.
Yet another nationwide poll with Trump in the lead for the GOP nomination, longest odds for Trump at William Hill on 28, I consider Trump a very good trading bet until at least the first GOP debate.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/14/usa-today-suffolk-poll-republicans-donald-trump/30102255/
"We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The fox is sometimes incorrectly referred to as vermin. It is not, and never has been categorised as such by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the only body empowered to impose the term on a wild species."
http://foxproject.org.uk/fox-facts/
Just seen the "Like A Virgin" sequence from Moulin Rouge for the first time. Hilarious. Yet another film I've yet to see from start to finish without interruption.
There aren't many bears around today, but the birthright of the people of England to engage in badger baiting, a sport requiring consummate skill and expertise to master, has been permanently removed by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, another damnable statute in need of urgent repeal.
I stress I take no view as to whether people should engage in the noble pursuits of fox hunting, bear baiting and cock and dog fighting, merely that it is an abuse of power for the majority to prohibit them.
MPs to debate revised 'English votes for English laws' plan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33530765
"The House of Commons is to debate revised government proposals to give England's MPs a veto over English laws.
A final set of proposals will be drafted after the debate, with a delayed vote to be held in September.
The debate comes after a row over plans to change fox hunting laws in England and Wales, with a vote being axed after the SNP said it would oppose the move.
The SNP had previously said it would not vote on issues affecting England and Wales only."
As Nick Palmer says down thread:
"Most people take a middle view, uneasily accepting some animal suffering for food and similar central preoiccupations(sic), but draw the line at doing it for sport." You call "sports" like that "noble"? A bunch of dogs attacking a bear with unnecessary suffering "fun". Really?
'I just want to remind people that NPXMP says he never posts anything on here he knows not to be true. That's been tested to breaking point.'
We remember the weekly fantasy canvass returns, not to mention the mass of red Liberals that were going to vote for him, Soubry was too frightened to debate with him and his ground game was just awesome.
It was just a question if his majority was 3,000 / 5,000.
Pure comedy gold.
As it turns out, I suspect it was also the best opportunity available to help the SNP embarrass themselves.
The originl Hunting Act (2004?) was followed a 1 million donation to Labour by the 'animal rights' lobby, and took up 700 hours of Parliamentatry Time that could have been used on something useful. I wonder what messes have been avoided later if the Lab back benchers had been paying attention properly in the earlier period?
Red herrings are vermin, including these three.
As Sir Humphery observed, its only the urban middle classes that get romantic about the countryside, and that is because they don't have to live in it.