UK Politics - Page 15

Janny · 02-14-2005, 04:27 PM

As he seemed pretty clear about.

Why do people always apologise about not apologising?

Do you think it actually merited an apology?

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-14-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I suppose it depends what they mean by "censure". It seems that the assembly "asked" him to withdraw his remarks but has no power to force him to do anything.

maybe smiling sweetly?

sun-star · 02-14-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janny

Do you think it actually merited an apology?

Maybe the real question is... is it worse than what Prince Harry did?

Janny · 02-14-2005, 05:09 PM

Don't be silly, dear. Prince Harry is royalty
=> what he did is much worse.

sun-star · 02-14-2005, 05:11 PM

Naturally.

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-14-2005, 05:13 PM

which is another arguement for turning to republicanism, our lovely royal family

sun-star · 02-14-2005, 05:18 PM

Er - I think Janny was being sarcastic. About double standards. Which you kind of just proved...

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-14-2005, 05:32 PM

yeh, but i really cant stand the royals,
we definitely should be a republic, the upper house could be made up of
maybe 2 people elected from each county then, tho we would have to make sure
we didnt end up like a different country with a system similar to that

sun-star · 02-14-2005, 05:40 PM

What, you mean Germany?

That presents its own problems. For one thing, how could the upper house have sovereignty over the lower house if they are both elected bodies? Counties aren't federal bodies, so why should a representative from one administrative district (county) have the power to overturn decisions made by a representative from a political district (constituency)? MPs typically represent small areas and are close to their consituents. I don't even know the names of Kent County Council (apart from their leader). Who is best placed to represent my views?

Also, what happens if a party has a majority in the upper house but not in the lower house? Suppose we had Labour in the majority in the Commons and the Conservatives controlling the new elected upper body. Who would have control? How would you determine which party formed the government, for that matter?

These are all rhetorical questions, by the way - no one has a real answer to them yet

Personally I'm in favour of an elected House of Lords too, but you don't have to abolish the monarchy to get one, and it would have to be very carefully structured.

The Gaffer · 02-21-2005, 06:05 AM

Elected by PR would be a start, and certainly preferable to Bliar's "new improved" mates system. The House of Lords has always had a Conservative majority in the past, btw. I think we should keep the existing powers (i.e. limited to suggesting amendments to legislation but can be overruled by the Commons) until it beds in a bit.

So who was out not killing foxes at the weekend? Any lessons from the "ban" on foxhunting (other than that the Countryside Alliance are a bunch of liars, but we knew that already)?

Hemel · 02-21-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janny

Do you think it actually merited an apology?

No.

As for fox-hunting - load of twisters. They're all complaining about all the horses and hounds that'd have to be put down, all the people who'd lose jobs. But it's still perfectly legal to follow trails - and heaven help us, still possible to chase after other animals and kill them, like rabbits and rats. You just can't kill foxes with dogs any more - but if they're found by a hunt they can be shot.

So what are the complaints?

Although - it's a bit of a silly law. Typical Blair side-stepping, all things to all people. And how easily is it enforceable?

The Gaffer · 02-21-2005, 08:26 AM

Spot on.

It's not as if it's an economically productive activity. It shows you how much they value their horses and hounds that they threatened to shoot them all if they were forced to kill their prey in a slightly different way.

I particularly like their slogan: Fight prejudice, fight the ban. Does anyone think that these people would know prejudice if it jumped up and bit them on the arse?

Also agree that it's a silly law. But the intriguing aspect for me is how the hunt saboteurs, a tradition that's now almost as venerable as hunting itself (well, a generation at least), are now being advised on how to bring private prosecutions and gather intelligence for the police.

One thing that did occur to me last Friday, as I was working away earning taxes to pay for farming subsidies, is how so many people can take a day off to go hunting? Oh wait...

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-21-2005, 10:21 AM

these types are the ones that cause the most prejudice,

btw, if 59% of the countryside want to keep hunting,
i would like to ask the countryside allinace when they interviewed me, as a rural inabitant
not that i am suggesting selective representation or anything

The Gaffer · 02-21-2005, 11:13 AM

Quite. Another point to note is where that 59% figure comes from.

They took the 18% who agreed with "hunting should continue as it is because it's a civil liberties issue", added it to the 41% who agreed with "hunting should continue in a regulated form as a compromise between civil liberties and animal welfare". (There were 36% left who thought it should be banned altogether.)

This second statement is, you'll notice, the state of affairs that we now have: continued hunting but with regulation! So they used support for the Government's proposed changes, but just repainted it as support for their own position! Twats and liars.

Oh, and they were banned from using that 59% figure by the Advertising Standards Agency, but clearly don't give a rat's arse about the law because they still use it anyway.

**Nurvingiel** · 02-21-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemel

No.

As for fox-hunting - load of twisters. They're all complaining about all the horses and hounds that'd have to be put down, all the people who'd lose jobs. But it's still perfectly legal to follow trails - and heaven help us, still possible to chase after other animals and kill them, like rabbits and rats. You just can't kill foxes with dogs any more - but if they're found by a hunt they can be shot.

So what are the complaints?

Although - it's a bit of a silly law. Typical Blair side-stepping, all things to all people. And how easily is it enforceable?

Sorry to jump in, but how big of an industry is fox hunting? I can't imagine that many people are in to fox hunting.

And all the horses and dogs that would be put down? What the hey? Who would say, "Oh, I can't hunt any more. I will need to shoot my horse."

I'm not really offering an opinion on hunting here, I just wanted to comment on "As for fox-hunting - load of twisters. They're all complaining about all the horses and hounds that'd have to be put down, all the people who'd lose jobs." (And I'm not saying you personally think that either Hemel. Just to avoid all possible confusion.)

We just had a lecture on study design today. It's entirely possible that the Countryside Alliance study experienced issues with one or more of generalizability, sampling bias, response rate, or interviewer bias, depending on how they conducted the study (interview, telephone, mail, focus group, etc.).

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-21-2005, 03:14 PM

hunting, as an indusrty, is a non-entity, if anything it costs money
they say blacksmiths will be out of work - this is a lie, there are more people with horses that dont hunt and will therefore still need horse shoes
dogs and horses PTS - also a lie, what's wrong with drag hunting? which is what
was enjoyed by 250 hunts across the country the day after the ban came into force

Janny · 02-21-2005, 04:23 PM

I know I'm a big advocate for the 'right thing for the wrong reason is the right thing' doctrine, but doesn't it concern you that this ban isn't actually about the hunting of foxes?

Doesn't it strike just a smidgeon of Labour trying to get Socialists to like them after the debacle of Iraq? The same thing as with Muslims and the Howard/Letwin Pig Poster?

Last Child of Ungoliant · 02-21-2005, 05:07 PM

oh yeh, blair is just trying to smarm up to the political descendants of arthur scargill

Hemel · 02-21-2005, 09:36 PM

Nurvingiel - this references job, horse, and hound losses. It's from the League Against Cruel Sports ... so it has its agenda too

The Gaffer · 02-22-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janny

I know I'm a big advocate for the 'right thing for the wrong reason is the right thing' doctrine, but doesn't it concern you that this ban isn't actually about the hunting of foxes?

Doesn't it strike just a smidgeon of Labour trying to get Socialists to like them after the debacle of Iraq? The same thing as with Muslims and the Howard/Letwin Pig Poster?

Yes; that's why I also said I think it's a silly law. Never mind invading Iraq, we've banned fox-hunting. Well actually we haven't. Having said that, it was a manifesto pledge and I am all for sticking it up those subsidy junkies in the landed classes. Right thing for the wrong reasons for sure!

02-14-2005, 04:27 PM	#281
Janny The Blobbit Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kent, England (Not Oxford! ... yet...) Posts: 1,596	As he seemed pretty clear about. Why do people always apologise about not apologising? Do you think it actually merited an apology? __________________ Janny's Songs Janny's lyrics and random photographs Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about. ~ Mercutio... erm, GK Chesterton.

02-14-2005, 05:09 PM	#284
Janny The Blobbit Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kent, England (Not Oxford! ... yet...) Posts: 1,596	Don't be silly, dear. Prince Harry is royalty => what he did is much worse. __________________ Janny's Songs Janny's lyrics and random photographs Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about. ~ Mercutio... erm, GK Chesterton.

02-14-2005, 05:11 PM	#285
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	Naturally. __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

02-14-2005, 05:18 PM	#287
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	Er - I think Janny was being sarcastic. About double standards. Which you kind of just proved... __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

02-14-2005, 05:40 PM	#289
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	What, you mean Germany? That presents its own problems. For one thing, how could the upper house have sovereignty over the lower house if they are both elected bodies? Counties aren't federal bodies, so why should a representative from one administrative district (county) have the power to overturn decisions made by a representative from a political district (constituency)? MPs typically represent small areas and are close to their consituents. I don't even know the names of Kent County Council (apart from their leader). Who is best placed to represent my views? Also, what happens if a party has a majority in the upper house but not in the lower house? Suppose we had Labour in the majority in the Commons and the Conservatives controlling the new elected upper body. Who would have control? How would you determine which party formed the government, for that matter? These are all rhetorical questions, by the way - no one has a real answer to them yet Personally I'm in favour of an elected House of Lords too, but you don't have to abolish the monarchy to get one, and it would have to be very carefully structured. __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

02-14-2005, 05:13 PM	#286
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	which is another arguement for turning to republicanism, our lovely royal family

02-14-2005, 05:32 PM	#288
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	yeh, but i really cant stand the royals, we definitely should be a republic, the upper house could be made up of maybe 2 people elected from each county then, tho we would have to make sure we didnt end up like a different country with a system similar to that

02-21-2005, 06:05 AM	#290
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Elected by PR would be a start, and certainly preferable to Bliar's "new improved" mates system. The House of Lords has always had a Conservative majority in the past, btw. I think we should keep the existing powers (i.e. limited to suggesting amendments to legislation but can be overruled by the Commons) until it beds in a bit. So who was out not killing foxes at the weekend? Any lessons from the "ban" on foxhunting (other than that the Countryside Alliance are a bunch of liars, but we knew that already)?

02-21-2005, 08:26 AM	#292
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Spot on. It's not as if it's an economically productive activity. It shows you how much they value their horses and hounds that they threatened to shoot them all if they were forced to kill their prey in a slightly different way. I particularly like their slogan: Fight prejudice, fight the ban. Does anyone think that these people would know prejudice if it jumped up and bit them on the arse? Also agree that it's a silly law. But the intriguing aspect for me is how the hunt saboteurs, a tradition that's now almost as venerable as hunting itself (well, a generation at least), are now being advised on how to bring private prosecutions and gather intelligence for the police. One thing that did occur to me last Friday, as I was working away earning taxes to pay for farming subsidies, is how so many people can take a day off to go hunting? Oh wait...

02-21-2005, 10:21 AM	#293
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	these types are the ones that cause the most prejudice, btw, if 59% of the countryside want to keep hunting, i would like to ask the countryside allinace when they interviewed me, as a rural inabitant not that i am suggesting selective representation or anything

02-21-2005, 11:13 AM	#294
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Quite. Another point to note is where that 59% figure comes from. They took the 18% who agreed with "hunting should continue as it is because it's a civil liberties issue", added it to the 41% who agreed with "hunting should continue in a regulated form as a compromise between civil liberties and animal welfare". (There were 36% left who thought it should be banned altogether.) This second statement is, you'll notice, the state of affairs that we now have: continued hunting but with regulation! So they used support for the Government's proposed changes, but just repainted it as support for their own position! Twats and liars. Oh, and they were banned from using that 59% figure by the Advertising Standards Agency, but clearly don't give a rat's arse about the law because they still use it anyway. Last edited by The Gaffer : 02-21-2005 at 11:15 AM.

02-21-2005, 03:14 PM	#296
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	hunting, as an indusrty, is a non-entity, if anything it costs money they say blacksmiths will be out of work - this is a lie, there are more people with horses that dont hunt and will therefore still need horse shoes dogs and horses PTS - also a lie, what's wrong with drag hunting? which is what was enjoyed by 250 hunts across the country the day after the ban came into force

02-21-2005, 04:23 PM	#297
Janny The Blobbit Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kent, England (Not Oxford! ... yet...) Posts: 1,596	I know I'm a big advocate for the 'right thing for the wrong reason is the right thing' doctrine, but doesn't it concern you that this ban isn't actually about the hunting of foxes? Doesn't it strike just a smidgeon of Labour trying to get Socialists to like them after the debacle of Iraq? The same thing as with Muslims and the Howard/Letwin Pig Poster? __________________ Janny's Songs Janny's lyrics and random photographs Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about. ~ Mercutio... erm, GK Chesterton.

02-21-2005, 05:07 PM	#298
Last Child of Ungoliant The Intermittent One Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: here and there Posts: 4,671	oh yeh, blair is just trying to smarm up to the political descendants of arthur scargill

02-21-2005, 09:36 PM	#299
Hemel Elven Warrior Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: on the boats Posts: 264	Nurvingiel - this references job, horse, and hound losses. It's from the League Against Cruel Sports ... so it has its agenda too

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canadian Politics	Nurvingiel	General Messages	157	05-22-2012 10:42 PM
World Politics	Last Child of Ungoliant	General Messages	141	06-28-2005 06:51 AM
Politics in Sport	Janny	General Messages	11	03-12-2004 12:40 PM
Politics	Lief Erikson	Writer's Workshop	31	06-08-2003 02:23 AM
Gah politics! Middle East discussion	markedel	General Messages	111	04-07-2002 01:34 PM