"Tories pledge to repeal hunting ban"

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that pie chart is b*ll*x!
Can you say where this information is from and provide a link to the website?
What is the author's definition of skilled?
A 'skilled' shooter would not wound that many foxes at 25yards they would be killed, even if they were using a shot-gun rather than a rifle.
What is unskilled person doing going out killing foxes anyway?

A very dubious piece of information if you ask me!
My husband has shot 16 foxes this year. 100% of the foxes he has shot at were killed with the first shot and they were at about 70 - 90 yards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the ban on hunting foxes, there are many more people killing foxes than was hitherto the case.

Foxes are a menace, and there is still a great need for their numbers to be controlled..........there are an estimated 100,000 foxes killed in Scotland every year by bodies and individuals concerned in their control. I wonder what the injury stats would be on those sort of numbers.

Up here (Scotland) it seems everyone and their brother is out to kill foxes, regardless of any law on hunting with hounds. If they can't be killed one way, they will be killed another. The hunting ban did nothing to protect the species and less to protect the individuals.

A fox with lead shot in it will die, sooner or later, and there is often a greater desire to get lead into them than there is for their welfare, especially when livelihoods are being affected.

Foxes are being shot at in poor light/at long range/in heavy cover, and snared/trapped/poisoned/run with lurchers/bolted by terriers/gassed, as well as shot by responsible 'marksmen'......................the battle is well and truly on.

Hunting foxes with hounds pales into insignificance by comparison to some alternative methods of so-called control, most of which are employed while the anti-hunting lot are still in their pits dreaming of fluffy creatures playing together in the sun.

However, foxhunting was easy to target as it involved a very clearly identifiable method of control, by lots of conscientious people riding in highly visible clothing to a pack of noisy hounds..................................

16 foxes..........is that all?
 
[ QUOTE ]
No I suggest that they cut the useless and needless quangos that have been created by this government, there are also cuts to be made in the use of external consultants which has ensured that there is essentially two civil services. There are plenty of savings to be made without necessarily cutting front line jobs. However don't believe any party leaflet that claims they won't make cuts, it just doesn't stack up financially.

I think we will hear more from the conservatives about the nuts and bolts of how they will achieve manifesto commitments in the run up to the general election. Either way they are better than Labour who can only bleat that 12 years weren't enough time for them to implement change. Well just what were they doing with the time. They were handed an economy that was well in the black back in 1997 and have steadily pissed it all away.

Whoever we vote for there is a heap of pain ahead mainly of a fiscal nature, but of all the parties I trust Conservatives to get us back on a level footing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were they doing with the time? Sitting on their laurels, enjoying the boom years we were having when the banks were making Monopoly money by investing in bad loans, until it all imploded last year, I think
smirk.gif


I wouldn't claim that Labour are much better and I can find plenty wrong with them, but I just can't believe the Tories would do a better job.

They're all as bad as each other I think.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't claim that Labour are much better and I can find plenty wrong with them, but I just can't believe the Tories would do a better job.[ QUOTE ]


At least under labour we all suffer whereas under the Tories only certain groups do lol
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't claim that Labour are much better and I can find plenty wrong with them, but I just can't believe the Tories would do a better job.[ QUOTE ]


At least under labour we all suffer whereas under the Tories only certain groups do lol

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one way of looking at it!! Under the Tories, only the very rich and titled won't suffer... us normal people who work for a living will be the ones penalised for doing exactly that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hunting foxes with hounds pales into insignificance by comparison to some alternative methods of so-called control, most of which are employed while the anti-hunting lot are still in their pits dreaming of fluffy creatures playing together in the sun.

However, foxhunting was easy to target as it involved a very clearly identifiable method of control, by lots of conscientious people riding in highly visible clothing to a pack of noisy hounds..................................[ QUOTE ]


Well at least the anti hunting 'lot', have stood up and done something and it had to start somewhere. My guess is you may know many of your countymen who are so actively breaking the law and causing suffering to foxes. How about you start your end and report them all to the RSPCA and police and we can meet in the middle?
 
Completely agree. We all remember what they were like last time and as one of Thatchers 'children', I am thoroughly sickened by the greed tory governments create. I feel let down by Labour and really liked Blair at his best but the Tories scare me far more than any Labour government.
 
The Tories are out and out capitalists. I'm all for working to improve your social standing, accumulate wealth and the rest of it, but the Tories stand for an "every man for himself" culture, IMHO. I don't want to pay to keep lazy ar£eholes on the dole but I do think we all need to have some sort of social conscience (sp). I don't think that will happen under the Tories.

David Cameron has no policies, other than those he invents in reaction to the latest headlines in the news. Bankers are paid a bonus..he wants to legislate to stop that happening. Someone is stabbed....he wants to legislate so that teachers can search kids for knives at school. Schools are failing...he wants to legislate to allow those who can afford it (ie, the very rich) to set up their own schools. Re-emergence of a class system anyone?!

The Conservatives frighten me almost as much as the BNP, and at least the BNP are honest about what they believe in (FWIW, chances are I will vote Green, so I'm not a BNP supporter!)...
smirk.gif


Labour may improve with Brown gone. Why do we have an unelected PM running OUR country??
mad.gif
 
The Tories everyman for himself culture sounds good with opportunity for all. Sadly, obviously not everybody can succeed and those that dont are shamelessly walked on and abused by the Conservatives.
Cracking post you have made and I firmly believe there are some good young politicians in the labour party who could/should take over the party and give themselves a fighting chance before it is too late.
I live in the Southwest and everybody seems to votes for the Libs and then moans that we dont have a voice in Parliament?! lol lol
 
The problem with this political debate is the lack of specific political knowledge. Most of the views on here are based on generic steroptypes, and views from the past. As a student of Politics, is amazes me how little people know, and how much they talk.
Since 1992 Labour has abandoned it's roots. Keir Hardy and Ramsey Macdonald would not recognise todays Labour party. Labour was set up as a democratic socialist party (accepts partliamentary means to get power, but once in wants socialist ends). Over time this has changed, and social democtracy became prevalent within the labour party (accepts both parliamentary power, and denies the ends of socialism). Again over time, social democracy has changed into the Third Way, under Blair, and now Brown, which endorses capitalism, and the free market. Labour is no longer socialist, nor 'for the working class', but for the people who they need support from to become elected - the middle class, and those who support them financially, the upper classes.
The Tories have a similar story of change. After Thatcher, through many leaders , the party has come further and away from the New Right, embracing the right of centre in the political spectrum, whereas Labour firmly occupy the centre. When people say there is a lack of choice this is not strictly true - there is choice just much more limited than it has been in recent history - particually in 1979 when it was Thatcher Vs Foot, in what was the biggest difference in policies recently seen, from New right to the last flourish of democratic socialism.
Sorry for this essay. It just really angers me when people argue without facts and thinking that 'yesterdays news' is good enough evidence in something as fast moving as politics. This is of course a brief summary (I could go on, but I think you would all fall asleep due to boredom) but I hope it is interesting and informative.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It just really angers me when people argue without facts and thinking that 'yesterdays news' is good enough evidence in something as fast moving as politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

People will form judgements on information put in front of them. For the most part our responses and 'understanding' are formed out of information read and heard in the media. It is precisely yesterday's news that becomes political history for the majority.

And, actually, I would argue that politics is not as fast moving as you would think. The same old arguments come up time and time again. Political reform is a slow moving animal as history shows us
wink.gif
 
Of course, strains and arguments will remain for a long time, but when people are using Thatcher's policies as an example of why Cameron is bad - nope doesn't wash with me.
I agree the media is to blame largely - mind you that doesn't stop people looking beyond and attempting to find out the truth for themselves - if they want to that is.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this political debate is the lack of specific political knowledge. Most of the views on here are based on generic steroptypes, and views from the past. As a student of Politics, is amazes me how little people know, and how much they talk.

Sorry for this essay. It just really angers me when people argue without facts and thinking that 'yesterdays news' is good enough evidence in something as fast moving as politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't work out whether this is a veiled insult?

Politics is inaccessible to those of us not directly involved in it. Politicians are surrounded by vast PR machines (IMO) and spin doctors. Last night I tried to actually read the Conservative manifesto but it's incredibly difficult to get past the spin on the website. Their website talks a lot without actually saying anything; claims which aren't claims, if that makes sense. And I think that is the problem. They, by which I mean politicians generally now, don't do anything to encourage the general public to become interested and get involved. Politics is all about PR and who has the friendliest face. To actually get beyond that and find out what each party stands for, aside from the headline grabbers (repeal the hunting ban, for example), is very difficult.

Incidentally, my view is not based on generic stereotypes and nor am I arguing "without facts". The Tory policies I talked about in a previous post are taken straight from their own website.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree the media is to blame largely

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I don't blame the media - their place is to inform, and for the most part do a pretty good job. Our responsibilities, as good citizens, is to absorb all the information thrown at us and form balanced opinions based on that information.

Perhaps tricky to do for a minority, but certainly not impossible.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this political debate is the lack of specific political knowledge. Most of the views on here are based on generic steroptypes, and views from the past. As a student of Politics, is amazes me how little people know, and how much they talk.
Since 1992 Labour has abandoned it's roots. Keir Hardy and Ramsey Macdonald would not recognise todays Labour party. Labour was set up as a democratic socialist party (accepts partliamentary means to get power, but once in wants socialist ends). Over time this has changed, and social democtracy became prevalent within the labour party (accepts both parliamentary power, and denies the ends of socialism). Again over time, social democracy has changed into the Third Way, under Blair, and now Brown, which endorses capitalism, and the free market. Labour is no longer socialist, nor 'for the working class', but for the people who they need support from to become elected - the middle class, and those who support them financially, the upper classes.
The Tories have a similar story of change. After Thatcher, through many leaders , the party has come further and away from the New Right, embracing the right of centre in the political spectrum, whereas Labour firmly occupy the centre. When people say there is a lack of choice this is not strictly true - there is choice just much more limited than it has been in recent history - particually in 1979 when it was Thatcher Vs Foot, in what was the biggest difference in policies recently seen, from New right to the last flourish of democratic socialism.
Sorry for this essay. It just really angers me when people argue without facts and thinking that 'yesterdays news' is good enough evidence in something as fast moving as politics. This is of course a brief summary (I could go on, but I think you would all fall asleep due to boredom) but I hope it is interesting and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

and can I ask, respectfully, if you can remember any of this happening?
I don't claim to remember Keir Hardy (quite!) but I have lived through most of your essay, which is quite different than reading about it.
 
Not a veiled insult at you, nor anyone else, just a generic statement at what gets my goat. I agree that if you attempt to get facts directly from what politicians say, you might as well do a dance, count to 10, point to the moon, and say the first thing that comes to your mind, as it will probably be as factual as anything you deduce from politcians. In order to get anywhere you have to read around, which is stupid, but the only way to get anywhere.
I do still blame the media, not entirely, but to a large extend. It's difficult to form a balanced opinion when you are either a) only given one side of the story or b) the argument is dumbed down so far that is actually no longer makes sense.
 
[ QUOTE ]
a) only given one side of the story or b) the argument is dumbed down so far that is actually no longer makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you are reading and who you are listening too.

I think the man on the street is an awful lot more savvy than you give them credit for.
 
[ QUOTE ]
mind you that doesn't stop people looking beyond and attempting to find out the truth for themselves - if they want to that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried last night. It's virtually impossible to get past the spin on each main party's websites and actually find out what they stand for. All I can see are words that don't tell me anything, clever use of emotive language, and nothing concrete (particularly on the Conservative website).

During the European elections, I went on the website for every main party and some of the smaller parties before I made my decision as to who to vote for. However, I think it's easier in the Europeans to vote for who you actually believe in because, thanks to proportional representation, the party you vote for actually has a chance of getting in. For me, the general election will be about stopping the Tories getting in. That means, whilst I would like to vote for a smaller party because I believe more in their policies, I will end up having to vote Labour for my vote to count. The only way for people like me, who don't want a Conservative Govt in, to stop that is to vote the only viable alternative.
 
I'm not a fan of Proportional representation or first past the post tbh! Have yet to find a voting system I can support, as they all have serious flaws.
Their official websites are awful to understand - totally agree! Books and blogs are much more informative and useful, they are not without personal slant, but are a lot better than listening to politicans or going on there websites. It's an awful state of affairs that this is true. No wonder there is so much apathy.
 
What worries me most is that, listening to something on Radio 4 yesterday, they said that the BNP received over 1 million votes in the European elections. Across the UK, less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually turned out, I think I heard. I think that's a frightening number.

Are there other voting systems, besides PR and FPTP?
 
Those are the main two, and then there are variations there of. (Many, many variations - there is even a 'theoretical' voting system that is so complicated that nowhere in the world uses it!)
Support for extremist parties is the biggest reason why I don't like PR. I will be watching Question Time tonight with interest.
 
[ QUOTE ]


and can I ask, respectfully, if you can remember any of this happening?
I don't claim to remember Keir Hardy (quite!) but I have lived through most of your essay, which is quite different than reading about it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Replying to myself ... because, it's not that I think study is worth less than experience, but that both need to be valued, and in our society, they are not.

The 'man on the street' good old Joe the plumber
wink.gif
has his view and rightly or wrongly, no turning back the clock now, has his vote, and it's a valid vote. It's criminal to me that his (my) opinion is manipulated by, admittedly very clever, very well read, spin doctors.

That's why I think it's great that these army generals have come out against the BNP, and it would be even better if a few WW2 veterans who weren't actually generals would speak up (I know some have) - far, far better than a) trying to gag them, or b) smarty pants spin doctors trying to hoist them by their own petard, always a risky manouever!

We should listen to and respect more the voice of experience. Just because its 'new' doesn't mean it's 'right' (Look at Labour!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top