politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Legalising fox-hunting: A vote winner for the Tories or a

Options
13

Comments

  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    French SF have gone for it.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    I am ambivalent about the whole fox hunting issue as I can see arguments on both sides and I am not exactly sure which side the 'animal cruelty' argument (which is fairly important to me) lies.

    All I can say, living in a very rural part of Lincolnshire is that my chickens are a lot safer these days. Now that there is no longer any hunting, the farmers have embarked on a very successful campaign of eradication through shooting, snaring and poisoning so unlike a decade ago, I hardly ever see foxes around here any more.

    Oh and for the record I am not saying this is a good thing as I would rather have the foxes and lose a few chickens once in a while. And I also realise that poisoning and snaring are illegal but I am sure they are happening now that the farmers see no benefits from the foxes.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.

    As for foxhunting - not my thing (although I love riding). But it carries on under the current law pretty much as it always has. All that happens is a bunch of sabs take films, waste police time recording them, the RSPCA wastes donations trying to prosecute minor unintentional infringements and puts individual MFHs under extreme stress for things that they usually didn't do personally.

    I can't see how the current situation benefits anyone.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Pulpstar said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    @isam

    The number of Hindus in the UK HAS gone up at a similar rate to the number of Muslims. As far as I'm aware, there's hardly any Hindu-Christian tension. Mainly because Hinduism doesn't have the extremist tendencies of Islam.

    Maybe not so much with upper class Brahmin immigrants but how about with the lower caste Romani Gypsies?
    Are they hindu ?!
    I try not to comment on other posters, but FalseFlag is well weird at times. The terrible Threat of Romany Hindus is a keeper. Romania, India, all the same, innit?
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    taffys said:

    And all these people doing the phony hashtag solidarity, screw your phony hashtag solidarity.

    I wonder how many liberals tweeting je suis JUIF today were solidly behind Hamas - an organisation that wants Israel wiped off the map - just a few months ago.

    Its the same fatuous group as #BringBackOurGirls. Hashtag activism is a way for people to "feel solidarity" and go to dinner parties with their chattering friends and tell people that they "took a stand" and "made a difference" and generally feel engaged and self-righteous without having actually done anything to or for anyone, or indeed interrupted their own self interested schedule for more than the couple of seconds it took to make the post.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    NickPalmer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    @isam

    The number of Hindus in the UK HAS gone up at a similar rate to the number of Muslims. As far as I'm aware, there's hardly any Hindu-Christian tension. Mainly because Hinduism doesn't have the extremist tendencies of Islam.

    Maybe not so much with upper class Brahmin immigrants but how about with the lower caste Romani Gypsies?
    Are they hindu ?!
    I try not to comment on other posters, but FalseFlag is well weird at times. The terrible Threat of Romany Hindus is a keeper. Romania, India, all the same, innit?
    They are ethnically Indian, which I didn't know previously :)
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheWatcher said:

    French SF have gone for it.

    Hope they take em alive.
  • Smarmeron
    Smarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Pulpstar
    Depending on who you believe, so are Celts.
  • A_Man_Called_Horse
    A_Man_Called_Horse Posts: 100
    A lot of people are mentioning 'The Life of Brian' and 'The Book of Mormon' as examples. Remember, also, protests against 'The Last Temptation of Christ' in 1988 culminated in a fundamentalist-led anti-Semitic rally outside the home of Lew Wasserman, head of Universal Studios. True, nobody died, but it was far from Christianity's finest hour either.
  • FalseFlag
    FalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    NickPalmer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    @isam

    The number of Hindus in the UK HAS gone up at a similar rate to the number of Muslims. As far as I'm aware, there's hardly any Hindu-Christian tension. Mainly because Hinduism doesn't have the extremist tendencies of Islam.

    Maybe not so much with upper class Brahmin immigrants but how about with the lower caste Romani Gypsies?
    Are they hindu ?!
    I try not to comment on other posters, but FalseFlag is well weird at times. The terrible Threat of Romany Hindus is a keeper. Romania, India, all the same, innit?
    Not my fault you are ignorant of the fact that gypsies originate from India. Plenty of tension in Sheffield as there has been in Eastern Europe for a millennia.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    French SF have gone for it.

    Hope they take em alive.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    A_Man_Called_Horse said:

    A lot of people are mentioning 'The Life of Brian' and 'The Book of Mormon' as examples. Remember, also, protests against 'The Last Temptation of Christ' in 1988 culminated in a fundamentalist-led anti-Semitic rally outside the home of Lew Wasserman, head of Universal Studios. True, nobody died, but it was far from Christianity's finest hour either.

    So lawful protest against something which was found offensive to a minority? What's the problem?
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    A_Man_Called_Horse said:

    A lot of people are mentioning 'The Life of Brian' and 'The Book of Mormon' as examples. Remember, also, protests against 'The Last Temptation of Christ' in 1988 culminated in a fundamentalist-led anti-Semitic rally outside the home of Lew Wasserman, head of Universal Studios. True, nobody died, but it was far from Christianity's finest hour either.

    You're trying to find a moral equivalence that doesn't exist.

  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,074
    edited January 2015
    FalseFlag said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    @isam

    The number of Hindus in the UK HAS gone up at a similar rate to the number of Muslims. As far as I'm aware, there's hardly any Hindu-Christian tension. Mainly because Hinduism doesn't have the extremist tendencies of Islam.

    Maybe not so much with upper class Brahmin immigrants but how about with the lower caste Romani Gypsies?
    Are they hindu ?!
    I try not to comment on other posters, but FalseFlag is well weird at times. The terrible Threat of Romany Hindus is a keeper. Romania, India, all the same, innit?
    Not my fault you are ignorant of the fact that gypsies originate from India. Plenty of tension in Sheffield as there has been in Eastern Europe for a millennia.
    But they is mostly Christian now. Though their language is related to modern Indian languages of the Indo-Aryan family such as Hindi and Gujurati.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    True, nobody died, but it was far from Christianity's finest hour either.

    Wasn't there a play that drove the Sikh community in Birmingham bonkers? I think it had to close down.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlQJbsVs48

    Wonder if this works...
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Bet? Something to do with $50 I assume?
  • Eddie
    Eddie Posts: 34
    If Cameron wants to send out a signal that he represents toffs and rich folk who enjoy killing animals as a sport, a repeal of fox hunting is the way to do it. He's not going to win any votes by pandering to his own kind.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anorak said:

    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Bet? Something to do with $50 I assume?
    He has a bet with Trevor Kav (from the Sun) as to whether oil will dip below $50 - been accusations of welching as Eck got fussy and claimed the bet was on the "Brent crude closing price"

    Update..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 49.98 -0.98 -1.92% Feb 15 10:39:34
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    ...
    Wonder if this works...

    Why do British news companies insist on sending two reporters to other countries and getting them to talk to each other rather than, say, anyone local who might have the slightest clue what is going on ?

  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    TGOHF said:

    Anorak said:

    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Bet? Something to do with $50 I assume?
    He has a bet with Trevor Kav (from the Sun) as to whether oil will dip below $50 - been accusations of welching as Eck got fussy and claimed the bet was on the "Brent crude closing price"

    Update..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 49.98 -0.98 -1.92% Feb 15 10:39:34
    Not the closing price here, I meant in New York, I mean, Tokyo, I mean .... oh shit.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    French SF have gone for it.

    Hope they take em alive.
    I believe they're giving the 'good news' to the Paris hostage takers too.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    edited January 2015
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...


    They didn't hold it because they would have lost it. Apart from the LDs there are the "Blue Foxes" (anti-hunting conservatives) which means the OM needs to be higher if there is going to be repeal from a free vote.

    It was fine not to hold it.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    TOPPING said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...
    They didn't hold it because they would have lost it. Apart from the LDs there are the "Blue Foxes" (anti-hunting conservatives) which mean the OM needs to be higher if there is going to be repeal from a free vote.

    It was fine not to hold it.


    But to not piss off the Countryside Alliance they just had to hold it with a free vote, not win it.

    And its not "find not to hold it" when you have promised someone that you will hold it, that is usually known as "lying" something Dave is becoming particularly good at.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheWatcher said:

    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    French SF have gone for it.

    Hope they take em alive.
    I believe they're giving the 'good news' to the Paris hostage takers too.
    Twitter says double sliced bread.
  • Theuniondivvie
    Theuniondivvie Posts: 44,327
    TGOHF said:

    Anorak said:

    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Bet? Something to do with $50 I assume?
    He has a bet with Trevor Kav (from the Sun) as to whether oil will dip below $50 - been accusations of welching as Eck got fussy and claimed the bet was on the "Brent crude closing price"

    Update..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 49.98 -0.98 -1.92% Feb 15 10:39:34
    Nowt worse than a welcher.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Oil drops below $50:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    Brothers dead.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TGOHF said:

    Anorak said:

    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Bet? Something to do with $50 I assume?
    He has a bet with Trevor Kav (from the Sun) as to whether oil will dip below $50 - been accusations of welching as Eck got fussy and claimed the bet was on the "Brent crude closing price"

    Update..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 49.98 -0.98 -1.92% Feb 15 10:39:34
    Nowt worse than a welcher.
    He's not lost yet..
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sky News — Charlie Hebdo suspects killed.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    AndyJS said:

    Sky News — Charlie Hebdo suspects killed.

    Good riddance.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...
    They didn't hold it because they would have lost it. Apart from the LDs there are the "Blue Foxes" (anti-hunting conservatives) which mean the OM needs to be higher if there is going to be repeal from a free vote.

    It was fine not to hold it.
    But to not piss off the Countryside Alliance they just had to hold it with a free vote, not win it.

    And its not "find not to hold it" when you have promised someone that you will hold it, that is usually known as "lying" something Dave is becoming particularly good at.


    It was fine.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,608
    Pulpstar said:

    AndyJS said:

    Sky News — Charlie Hebdo suspects killed.

    Good riddance.
    Yes, but I wonder if they had any useful intelligence had they been taken alive.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    A surreal day. Is this the new normal?

    God help us.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I hope the hostage with the brothers survived, although the odds can't be good after the raid.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    Andy - Now reporting that hostage freed and alive. CAVEAT: It's all very confused at the moment, but Sky were quoting local journalists who believed it to be true.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Anorak said:

    Andy - Now reporting that hostage freed and alive.

    Hope this is true :)
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    Anorak said:

    Andy - Now reporting that hostage freed and alive.

    Is it too much to hope all hostages takers dead all hostages freed? One so far in Paris...

    If so I will drink an extra glass of Ch. Beychevelle this evening in honour of La France.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    TGOHF said:

    Eck may have to pay up his bet - getting close..

    Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 50.07 -0.89 -1.75% Feb 15 10:34:23 (ET)

    Hes offered to go double or nothing on end of 2015 closing price.

    Dear Trevor,

    Happy New Year and Brent Oil Price.

    You should never claim a win on a bet until your horse is past the post – the bet is Brent oil price at the end of day (closing price), of any day this year – last night’s price was $51.10 and the price at 3pm today was $51.66. If you do win – and things do look good for you just now, bad for oil workers but good for you – then you shall receive from me $50 in greenbacks so you can hide it from George Osborne!

    In which case I will offer you a double on $50 end of year price given the lesson that the oil market’s go down but always go up again. The serious point is this – London glee on low oil prices rather overlooks the impact it has on Scottish jobs, when the price is high, as in 2011, the Treasury move like lightning to tax to the hilt but when prices are low they move at a snail’s pace to help.

    In light of this perhaps our next bet should be on the number of SNP MPs in the next Parliament!

    Best wishes,
    Alex
  • Neil
    Neil Posts: 7,983
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    Dave is completely fecked. All in on PM Miliband!!!
  • TOPPING
    TOPPING Posts: 44,060
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    Morris Dancing? Table skittles?

    Get a hold of yourself.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    Where would you go? Not UKIP. Farage is very pro hunting.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    Although without those CA campaigners swinging those 10 constituencies you are probably fecked anyway.

    And tbh its this sort of illiberal judgemental tosh that turns me right off a the Tories.

    Not going to leave the Tory because the PM tells whoppers all the time, conspicuously has no principles, or because he couldn't find a majority with two hands and an atlas, but voting for fox hunting, supported by thousands of loyal rural Conservative voters, that will do it every time.. I despair.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

  • bigjohnowls
    bigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Hinchinbrooke Care and Quality Commission report due out next week should make interesting reading. Wonder if that was partly responsible for Circles decision to cut and run?

    A report by the Care Quality Commission’s new regime is expected to be highly critical of the hospital. The Circle statement said the report’s conclusions, which follow a preliminary report last year, would be unbalanced and that it would contest many of them. In preliminary findings released in September, the CQC reported that patients at the hospital were being neglected, hygiene was inadequate and Hinchingbrooke was facing staffing problems.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    TheWatcher said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    Where would you go? Not UKIP. Farage is very pro hunting.
    She'll vote for that nice Jewish boy.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Do you visit France? Because hunting is legal and popular there AFAIK.
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,685
    Tissue_Price said:

    Can't disagree with Mark Steyn here:

    These guys are dead because back in 2005, these Danish cartoons were published in an obscure Jutland newspaper, and a bunch of fanatics went bananas and started killing people over them. So a couple of publications on the planet, including mine in Canada, and Charlie Hebdo in Paris, published these cartoons... Le Monde didn't, and the Times of London didn't, and the New York Times didn't, and nobody else did. And as a result, these fellows in Charlie Hebdo became the focus of murderous rage. If we'd all just published them on the front page and said "If you want to kill us, you go to hell, you can't just kill a couple of obscure Danes, you're going to have to kill us all", we wouldn't have this problem. But because nobody did that, these Parisian guys are dead. They're dead. And I've been on enough, I've been on enough events in Europe with less famous cartoonists than these who live under death threats, live under armed guard, have had their family restaurant firebombed - it's happened to a Norwegian comedienne I know - have come home and found their home burned, as a Swedish artist I know happened to. And all these people doing the phony hashtag solidarity, screw your phony hashtag solidarity. Let's have some real solidarity - or if not, at least have the good taste to stay the hell out of it.

    http://www.steynonline.com/6743/screw-your-hashtag-solidarity

    On this matter, it's very much a case of we all hang together, or we will all hang separately.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,866
    le monde reporting hostage taker in Paris also dead. Are we sure Hollande is a goner?
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    bigjohnowls said:

    Hinchinbrooke Care and Quality Commission report due out next week should make interesting reading. Wonder if that was partly responsible for Circles decision to cut and run?

    A report by the Care Quality Commission’s new regime is expected to be highly critical of the hospital. The Circle statement said the report’s conclusions, which follow a preliminary report last year, would be unbalanced and that it would contest many of them. In preliminary findings released in September, the CQC reported that patients at the hospital were being neglected, hygiene was inadequate and Hinchingbrooke was facing staffing problems.

    It's a gold mine for Labour, although tricky for Burnham.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,074
    Hoping the hostages all made it out alive
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    DavidL said:

    le monde reporting hostage taker in Paris also dead. Are we sure Hollande is a goner?

    No - 7-1 Le Pen was a good price I thought that was all, should be arbable nearer the time as it looks like she'll make the run off.

    This could play well for M Hollande though.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue itself matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    Yes, we noticed how the new modern detoxified party was trying to divest itself of its shire vote as fast as it can, while complaining that not enough people want to vote Conservative.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Another surprise, didn't realise Martin Lewis was Jewish.
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,685
    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    I remember losing my rag with Marcus Woods PPC on this when he welched on it before the election. It's not a surprise he lost if he was that fickle.

    I don't think there are many floating voters who'd change their vote away from the Conservatives over the issue of fox-hunting. However, those that do feel that way are very vocal and extremely emotional about it.

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    I'd assume this is more about GOTV than anything else. IIRC the Countryside Alliance put together a very effective operation at the last election & the Tories would very much like them to do it again. They didn't repeal the law this time (mainfesto pledge) because the LibDems are utterly opposed to the extension of liberty.

    As for foxhunting - not my thing (although I love riding). But it carries on under the current law pretty much as it always has. All that happens is a bunch of sabs take films, waste police time recording them, the RSPCA wastes donations trying to prosecute minor unintentional infringements and puts individual MFHs under extreme stress for things that they usually didn't do personally.

    I can't see how the current situation benefits anyone.
    It doesn't, but there won't be a vote in the next parliament because the Tories won't win a majority, let alone a solid own.

    The most honest thing Cameron could do is propose some sensible amendments to the existing ban, and then hold a free vote on that. Or sponsor a free vote in the HoC, knowing it will probably be lost, out of a sense of honour and to keep the debate alive.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    Strangely enough, I'm capable of reading.

    Your argument makes very little sense.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Yougov — % of a party's voters who believe they have a HIGH chance of being harmed in a terrorist attack in the UK

    UKIP 11%
    CON 9%
    LAB 8%
    LD 0"

    twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/status/553462857313316865
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Casino_Royale said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Can't disagree with Mark Steyn here:

    These guys are dead because back in 2005, these Danish cartoons were published in an obscure Jutland newspaper, and a bunch of fanatics went bananas and started killing people over them. So a couple of publications on the planet, including mine in Canada, and Charlie Hebdo in Paris, published these cartoons... Le Monde didn't, and the Times of London didn't, and the New York Times didn't, and nobody else did. And as a result, these fellows in Charlie Hebdo became the focus of murderous rage. If we'd all just published them on the front page and said "If you want to kill us, you go to hell, you can't just kill a couple of obscure Danes, you're going to have to kill us all", we wouldn't have this problem. But because nobody did that, these Parisian guys are dead. They're dead. And I've been on enough, I've been on enough events in Europe with less famous cartoonists than these who live under death threats, live under armed guard, have had their family restaurant firebombed - it's happened to a Norwegian comedienne I know - have come home and found their home burned, as a Swedish artist I know happened to. And all these people doing the phony hashtag solidarity, screw your phony hashtag solidarity. Let's have some real solidarity - or if not, at least have the good taste to stay the hell out of it.

    http://www.steynonline.com/6743/screw-your-hashtag-solidarity

    On this matter, it's very much a case of we all hang together, or we will all hang separately.
    I don't often agree with him but this is the exact position that David Aaranovitch has been taking over the last couple of days. He basically said that the Western media has betrayed Charlie Hebdo, leaving them as targets by not supporting them in the publication of the cartoons.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    AndyJS said:

    "Yougov — % of a party's voters who believe they have a HIGH chance of being harmed in a terrorist attack in the UK

    UKIP 11%
    CON 9%
    LAB 8%
    LD 0"

    twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/status/553462857313316865

    From which we learn that LibDems understand maths, and kippers don't. Or, more likely, they could only find one LD voter, and (s)he happened not to believe it.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,866
    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    AndyJS said:

    "Yougov — % of a party's voters who believe they have a HIGH chance of being harmed in a terrorist attack in the UK

    UKIP 11%
    CON 9%
    LAB 8%
    LD 0"

    twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/status/553462857313316865

    Wasn't it them or a friend of theirs - I'd say it was "very low" if you live in London or another major city and practically non existent elsewhere.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    They aren't.

    It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.

    The Telegraph article makes that very clear. However the Telegraph headline is deliberately misleading - it is presumably worded in that way as that is what the Telegraph WANTS to happen.

  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    You are talking rubbish I am afraid. We already have fox hunting even now, with dogs. The law is an ass. I fail to see any difference with hunting with dogs and laying down poison. I certainly do not support class based bigoted left wing attacks on a whole raft of ordinary people behaving perfectly properly.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,866
    One policeman injured, all of the hostages freed, all of the scum dead. A truly great result for French law enforcement.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
    If the extremists were planning to kill hostages, they didn't make a very good job of it, thank goodness. Well done to the French forces.
    DavidL said:

    One policeman injured, all of the hostages freed, all of the scum dead. A truly great result for French law enforcement.

  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    Another great month for US jobs numbers. Unemployment is now down a quarter on when Obama took office. Continues the trend of Democratic Presidents having better economic records than Republican Presidents.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    AndyJS said:

    If the extremists were planning to kill hostages, they didn't make a very good job of it, thank goodness. Well done to the French forces.

    DavidL said:

    One policeman injured, all of the hostages freed, all of the scum dead. A truly great result for French law enforcement.

    Hear, hear.
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,685
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Can't disagree with Mark Steyn here:

    These guys are dead because back in 2005, these Danish cartoons were published in an obscure Jutland newspaper, and a bunch of fanatics went bananas and started killing people over them. So a couple of publications on the planet, including mine in Canada, and Charlie Hebdo in Paris, published these cartoons... Le Monde didn't, and the Times of London didn't, and the New York Times didn't, and nobody else did. And as a result, these fellows in Charlie Hebdo became the focus of murderous rage. If we'd all just published them on the front page and said "If you want to kill us, you go to hell, you can't just kill a couple of obscure Danes, you're going to have to kill us all", we wouldn't have this problem. But because nobody did that, these Parisian guys are dead. They're dead. And I've been on enough, I've been on enough events in Europe with less famous cartoonists than these who live under death threats, live under armed guard, have had their family restaurant firebombed - it's happened to a Norwegian comedienne I know - have come home and found their home burned, as a Swedish artist I know happened to. And all these people doing the phony hashtag solidarity, screw your phony hashtag solidarity. Let's have some real solidarity - or if not, at least have the good taste to stay the hell out of it.

    http://www.steynonline.com/6743/screw-your-hashtag-solidarity

    On this matter, it's very much a case of we all hang together, or we will all hang separately.
    I don't often agree with him but this is the exact position that David Aaranovitch has been taking over the last couple of days. He basically said that the Western media has betrayed Charlie Hebdo, leaving them as targets by not supporting them in the publication of the cartoons.
    I virtually never agree with him, but I've been impressed with the frank honesty of the editor of the Independent on this. He admitted he didn't publish because no one else was, and he didn't want to make his paper and staff a target.

    He then went on to admit that this was self-censorship, and did give the terrorists in effect a moral victory: they've achieved what they want.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    MikeL said:


    It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.

    Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.

  • Neil
    Neil Posts: 7,983
    Flightpath said:

    The law is an ass. I fail to see any difference with hunting with dogs and laying down poison.

    Are you under the impression that it is legal to poison foxes?
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited January 2015
    Paris gunman "neutralised". Good
  • A_Man_Called_Horse
    A_Man_Called_Horse Posts: 100
    "It's very much a case of we all hang together, or we will all hang separately..."

    If the only option is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a lying NeoCon warmonger like David Aaranovitch, then start measuring my noose.
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    Neil said:

    Flightpath said:

    The law is an ass. I fail to see any difference with hunting with dogs and laying down poison.

    Are you under the impression that it is legal to poison foxes?
    No, he is under the impression it happens, and will happen more the harder it is to hunt with dogs, because its practically impossible to detect, and its the most expedient way for a farmer to get rid of the problem.

  • A_Man_Called_Horse
    A_Man_Called_Horse Posts: 100
    "Well done to the French forces."

    No disagreement there!
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,685
    DavidL said:

    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
    Is that the Cameron detoxification project that failed to persuade more than 36% of the electorate to vote for him last time, failed to win an outright majority over a Gordon Brown led Labour, has led to the haemorrhaging of over half of all Conservative Party members, and the defection of over 20% of their core vote, such that it looks like the party now will never win a majority ever again?

    Do you mean that one?
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,866
    Casino_Royale said:

    DavidL said:

    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
    Is that the Cameron detoxification project that failed to persuade more than 36% of the electorate to vote for him last time, failed to win an outright majority over a Gordon Brown led Labour, has led to the haemorrhaging of over half of all Conservative Party members, and the defection of over 20% of their core vote, such that it looks like the party now will never win a majority ever again?

    Do you mean that one?
    Yep, that's the one. The one with a party with a future in modern Britain at the end of it.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Telegraph has challenged Cameron to a 5 way pre election debate - Con/Lab/Lib/Green/Kipper...

  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
    O/T:

    A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Indigo said:

    Neil said:

    Flightpath said:

    The law is an ass. I fail to see any difference with hunting with dogs and laying down poison.

    Are you under the impression that it is legal to poison foxes?
    No, he is under the impression it happens, and will happen more the harder it is to hunt with dogs, because its practically impossible to detect, and its the most expedient way for a farmer to get rid of the problem.

    Exactly the point I made earlier. The part of the Lincolnshire Edge that I live on is now pretty much fox free and much of that is due to snaring and poisoning since shooting is generally so difficult. I am not sure that has been a good result either for the foxes or the countryside as a whole. Foxes might eventually end up as a predominantly urban animal, much as is happening with hedgehogs.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Vive La France :)
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    DavidL said:

    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
    I think the "lose the election" project is doing just fine already. How can Conservatives look with equanimity at the current situation, every time someone a bit social conservative, a bit old fashioned, a bit fruitcakey leaves the party, they whip out the champagne and toast the further detoxification of the party, not noticing that their vote continues to drop, and the same person usually pops up for Farage.

    The broad church one nation Tory party of government is about to be the narrow liberal right-on modernised detoxified quinoa-eating party of Her Majesty's Opposition. It will be nice to sit on the opposition benches watching Ed make a complete Horlicks of everything and know it was almost entirely self-inflicted.
    DavidL said:

    Yep, that's the one. The one with a party with a future in modern Britain at the end of it.

    On the opposition benches.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Indigo said:

    MikeL said:


    It is not Conseervative party policy to legalise fox hunting. If there is a vote on it, it will be a free vote.

    Look it's very simple. The Conservative Party has got to lose this reputation for lying, or no one it is every going to believe what they say, why do you think no one believes Dave about the referendum, so many Tories jump up and down and say how can you not believe him, he said it. Well he told the Countryside Alliance he would hold a free vote on fox hunting in exchange for their support. He must have cared enough to get it into the Coalition Agreement, because the LDs sure as hell didn't propose it. Then, in a moment of political expediency he dropped it. He broke another promise.

    Which begs the question of why the Telegraph is wasting time printing misleading headlines on the subject.

    Everyone knows there is zero chance of fox hunting being legalised.

    Even if Con win a majority we know for 100% certain that it won't happen - because enough Con MPs will vote against.

    It is a 100% waste of time anyone even thinking about it, let alone writing posts on the internet about it.

    Forget it.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    ..

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    ..
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...

    This report suggests you are mostly wrong
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/26/david-cameron-drops-plans-ease-foxhunting-restrictions
    ''The coalition agreement promised a free vote on repealing the hunting ban but this was unofficially shelved in 2011 over signs that there were insufficient MPs to overturn the ban''
    --- What would be the point of gifting a defeat to the anti hunt brigade?? What then would be the justification in bringong it forward again?
    And in respect of easing the ban for Welsh upland farmers...
    ''Dan Rogerson, an [LD] environment minister,... wrote to a constituent dismissing the idea that the coalition had agreed to a vote.
    "I would like to reassure you that the Hunting Act is not under threat by the coalition government," he wrote. "The Conservative party may wish to amend the Hunting Act, but Liberal Democrats have not agreed to make any amendments or changes to the Hunting Act. No votes or pieces of secondary legislation have been agreed by the government."
    This is all part of the joys of coalition govt and its why ''Cameron said: "As you know, as I've said before at this dispatch box, proposals were made on a cross-party basis to [Owen Paterson, the environment secretary] about an amendment to the Hunting Act that would help in particular upland farmers deal with the problem of fox predation of their lands.
    "That letter has been received and is being considered but I regret to say I don't think there'll be government agreement to go forward."

    You can continue your merry way if you want - I'll stick to facts.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited January 2015
    4 hostages dead...
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Sky news

    4 hostages dead at supermarket

    Very sad
  • Indigo
    Indigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    MikeL said:

    It is a 100% waste of time anyone even thinking about it, let alone writing posts on the internet about it.

    Forget it.

    Because I was hoping we had a leader with integrity, seems not.
    Flightpath said:

    You can continue your merry way if you want - I'll stick to facts.

    Yes, your facts support my view. It was in the coalition agreement, and Cameron dropped it because he thought he couldn't win it, no argument there. Its hardly a big surprise, he knew he couldn't win it when he signed the agreement, the numbers didn't add up then either, but he promised he would hold a free vote on it, and he didnt.

  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 16s17 seconds ago
    BBC Reports: four hostages dead in Paris. Not the time for triumphalism.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited January 2015
    Casino_Royale said:

    DavidL said:

    audreyanne said:

    Sean_F said:

    audreyanne said:

    If the Conservatives are serious about bringing back fox hunting I may take my vote elsewhere.

    It's not the issue matters that much to me in itself, it's just that it symbolises everything I loathe about the party of the past and from which, thank goodness, we have moved on. Fox hunting of that sort has no place in today's Britain.

    If it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't affect your vote.

    Read, then read again.

    I said 'it's not that the issue matters that much to me in itself it's just that it symbolises everything … . I'm not alone on this. In other words Sean (sigh, that I have to spell it out) it's a throwback to a part of our past that should be left, in the past.
    TBH I am with you on this one. It would undo so much of the Cameron detoxification project it doesn't bear thinking about. Lets leave that nonsense to Disney and biscuit boxes.
    Is that the Cameron detoxification project that failed to persuade more than 36% of the electorate to vote for him last time, failed to win an outright majority over a Gordon Brown led Labour, has led to the haemorrhaging of over half of all Conservative Party members, and the defection of over 20% of their core vote, such that it looks like the party now will never win a majority ever again?

    A decade of Milliband then. Chin chin.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Very sad news indeed.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Shucks :(
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.

    Well 57p a litre of that is duty and another 18p approx is VAT. So that is 96p taken care of. That means if petrol is selling at 106p a litre as it is at the supermarkets right now, the refining, transport and sales costs as well as any profit you think they ought to be making amounts to 10p a litre or 9.4%.

    Of course the biggest individual organisation to blame for the price of petrol compared to the price of oil is HMRC.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    A great comment from the article on the Graun's donation to Charlie H:

    Graun The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.

    Comment No, it does not 'oblige' you to. But you could choose to do so specifically in order to demonstrate to the murderers and their supporters that you will not be cowed by their actions.

    Graun But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice.

    Comment No. The best response to these murders is to publish the cartoons even if you ordinarily wouldn't because of their content. The murders have rendered that content irrelevant; the cartoons now symbolise free speech, as the murderers actions demonstrated - it is the act of publishing that is now.

    If you actually wish to defend freedom of speech, publish the cartoons.

    If you are too afraid to do so, be honest about it instead of presenting us with this sad little rationalisation.

    [how do you indent in HTML?]
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Flightpath said:

    Indigo said:

    Charles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I want it repealed. Big time. But I think it'd only pass with a Conservative majority of 50 or so. There'd be a couple of dozen Tory MPs who'd vote against it, and a few more who'd abstain.

    ..

    EDIT: I just saw SandyRentool's post. I rest my case.

    ..
    If it is they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The Libs can't have been that opposed to the idea since it was in the Coalition Agreement
    We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.
    The Conservatives were not required by their deal with the CA to actually win the vote, just to hold a free vote on the subject, and they didn't.

    Its going to look like another example of cast iron Dave's cast iron lies, fat chance of the CA turning out for him this time.

    no ifs, no buts...
    This report suggests you are mostly wrong
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/26/david-cameron-drops-plans-ease-foxhunting-restrictions
    ''The coalition agreement promised a free vote on repealing the hunting ban but this was unofficially shelved in 2011 over signs that there were insufficient MPs to overturn the ban''
    --- What would be the point of gifting a defeat to the anti hunt brigade?? What then would be the justification in bringong it forward again?
    And in respect of easing the ban for Welsh upland farmers...
    ''Dan Rogerson, an [LD] environment minister,... wrote to a constituent dismissing the idea that the coalition had agreed to a vote.
    "I would like to reassure you that the Hunting Act is not under threat by the coalition government," he wrote. "The Conservative party may wish to amend the Hunting Act, but Liberal Democrats have not agreed to make any amendments or changes to the Hunting Act. No votes or pieces of secondary legislation have been agreed by the government."
    This is all part of the joys of coalition govt and its why ''Cameron said: "As you know, as I've said before at this dispatch box, proposals were made on a cross-party basis to [Owen Paterson, the environment secretary] about an amendment to the Hunting Act that would help in particular upland farmers deal with the problem of fox predation of their lands.
    "That letter has been received and is being considered but I regret to say I don't think there'll be government agreement to go forward."

    You can continue your merry way if you want - I'll stick to facts.

    Well there is a first time for everything but I won't hold my breath.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    A barrel of oil (159 litres) now sells for the equivalent of £33, which is about 21 pence a litre. It costs about five times that amount at forecourts.

    Well 57p a litre of that is duty and another 18p approx is VAT. So that is 96p taken care of. That means if petrol is selling at 106p a litre as it is at the supermarkets right now, the refining, transport and sales costs as well as any profit you think they ought to be making amounts to 10p a litre or 9.4%.

    Of course the biggest individual organisation to blame for the price of petrol compared to the price of oil is HMRC.
    You have to love the way VAT gets charged on the duty element.


  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TGOHF said:

    Telegraph has challenged Cameron to a 5 way pre election debate - Con/Lab/Lib/Green/Kipper...

    Perhaps we should have the Manfred Mann format for the debates - 5:4:3:2:1.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Anorak said:

    TheWatcher said:

    A greater number of animals suffer at the hands of Halal butchers than fox hunting. Opposing the latter is more about Class War, than any concern for animal welfare.

    malcolmg said:

    exactly and means more foxes get shot to pieces so does not make a lot of difference to foxes other than it is easier to avoid the dogs than a load of buckshot

    Malcom and The Watcher agree. The End Times are truly upon us.
    LOL
This discussion has been closed.

Categories