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

Anorak said:

A 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.

Yep - that is the long and the short of it.

NickPalmer said:

I don't think we need to demonise each other. It's a straightforward choice between preserving English traditions and not having a sport hinging on suffering for animals. I can see why some might feel the former was more important, but it's not a tradition that in my opinion does us much credit, and I think the Conservatives would attract ridicule as well as dislike if they set aside time for it in the next Parliament.

Has Nick Palmer just conceded the general election to the Conservatives ?

audreyanne

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

It's always funny when Tories pretend their party is progressive when anyone with an IQ into double figures knows it isn't. It's like UKIPers with their innocent faces when they discover they're magnets to racists.

Captain Renault's 'Shocked, I'm shocked is sixty years old and still gets a smile.

The appeal of TV debates is that the party leaders get to speak directly to millions of people who don't usually engage in politics. A "digital" debate held by the Telegraph and Guardian for political anoraks would be a waste of time during the campaign.

One thing that probably can be said is that consumers will not be happy if oil returns to $115 any time soon.

dr_spyn said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

Not hard to see why governments aren't keen to allow all firms to print bills for customers showing how much tax was taken in duty, VAT.

We saw soldiers with machine guns on patrol with police in Toulouse this afternoon. A sombre, watchful atmosphere. The world weighs heavy on France tonight.

TheWatcher said:

malcolmg said:

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

Je Suis Malkie.

Nom De Nom, Sacre Bleu , ............Certes, je ne suis pas en train de devenir l'observateur

Fox hunting - Who gives a f*x?

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.

His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.

He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.

I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.

Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.

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.


I'm sure the CA leadership was squared in advance. At that point it becomes a "change in plans"

audreyanne said:

By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should .

Had the British press all published the cartoons it would have showed the terrorists that it is counter productive to kill editors and writers.

Had the Britsh press all published the cartoons it would have shown they were not intimidated by the terrorists.

What a lost opportunity and how cowardly.

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

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.

Sod it. I'd like to see a pb.com debate with some of the more colourful posters:

Labour - BJO
Lib Dem - Mark Senior
Tory - AudreyAnne
UKIP - MikeK
SNP - Malcolmg

David Herdson to moderate. Questions from the audience from the rest of us.

Shadsy's buzzword bingo market would price "turnip" at 1/100.

Casino_Royale said:

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.

His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.

He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.

I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.

Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.

The pro hunting brigade will never get the majority of the voters as a whole in favour of bringing back fox hunting . Their only hope is to get it repealed in some devious manner whereby they can ignore public opinion .
If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc .
The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .

MarkSenior said:

Casino_Royale said:

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

To be fair, on this I think Dave would keep his promise purely because I have it on good authority that fox hunting is one of the few things he passionately cares about.

His minister crunched the numbers this time, and concluded it wouldn't be won, so he shelved it.

He doesn't want to hold the vote and lose, because it might then settle the matter.

I understand that completely. So he shouldn't have made the promise. Its like reducing immigration, it was obvious to everyone that he couldn't do it, even when he said it, but he just couldn't help himself.

Except on this one there's evidence of Cameron thinking about how he can best achieve his goal. But it's his own failure to win over a broad coalition of voters to his side that's the issue, not others (like the EU) outside his direct control.

The pro hunting brigade will never get the majority of the voters as a whole in favour of bringing back fox hunting . Their only hope is to get it repealed in some devious manner whereby they can ignore public opinion .
If they succeeded they would then try and find ways of bringing back all the other barbaric " traditional country pursuits " dog fighting , cock fighting , stag hunting , bear baiting etc etc .
The proponents of the latter sadistic practices are no worse than those who want fox hunting restored indeed in many cases they are the same people .

What a lot of bollocks.

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.

That's about right:

Cost on forecourt: 100%
Tax 70%
Cost of fuel 15%
Operating costs, rent, staff etc 10%
Retail profit margin 5%

Anorak said:

Edin_Rokz said:

weejonnie said:

DaemonBarber said:

Hunting foxes with dogs is barbaric.
However, is it something that the state should seek to ban? I would argue that yes is is, it is cruel and utterly unnecessary.

'The pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable' IIRC - however culling foxes is necessary and no more cruel than your cat bringing a dead mouse into the house.

Since I am a firm believer that people have the right to do what they want - subject to respecting the rights of other people and their property then I am definitely in favour of allowing Fox-hunting to resume.

When the Twits in Pink run through some of the housing estates, chased by a varied selection of alsatians, dobermans, mastiffs, pit bulls, etc, with their respective owners following on their mountain bikes carrying baseball bats for mercy killings, then I think we should allow any of the TIP's who get away to have their fun going after foxes.

Sounds like it would be more fun to watch on TV than Big Brother!

You do realise that makes you sound like something of a [presumably vegan] nutter, don't you?

Sorry for the delay, been out walking the dog.

My mind about the hunts was made up when I found out that most actually maintained the breeding populations of foxes in the Hunt's area to provide entertainment to the Hunt. Done by feeding and protecting dens etc..

The arguments made by CA are mostly specious, and when you consider that the actual kill rate of the hunts make it questionable hobby and a bloody nuisance when the Hunt goes over newly planted fields, damaging walls and fences.

I have no real liking for pests such as foxes, rabbits or even deer. If they are in the wrong place, either move them or if that is not viable (urban foxes being captured and being let loose in the countryside by so called do-gooders, the foxes starved to death) then shoot them or poison them. If it's rabbits or deer - shoot then eat them.

Apart from that, I still think it would be better TV than Big Brother. Mind you, anything is better than BB