Today we had the ban on hunting with hounds forced through the commons. There are two aspects to this issue and I object to both of them.
The first is that a Government with a huge majority are forcing through a ban on an issue for which there is no public interest and all the while the public services are not improving and we are being taxed to the hilt. The Countryside Alliance will argue this is urban MP's forcing through a ban on the country; they may be right. But actually the urban dweller does not care less about the issue. No one I have spoken to in Kingston & Surbiton in the past few months has raised with me their passion to have hunting banned. Instead this is a desperate Blair offering slops to the backbenchers of his party. But it gets worse...Blair then complains that the House of Lords might overturn it and he will have to force it through using the Parliament Act. Well excuse me but who made a complete mess of the House of Lords by half reforming it? If he had done what the Conservatives had argued for, a fully elected Lord's, then their objections would have been legitimatised.
But what of the real issue? I am against a ban on hunting. The simple reality is that destroying the way of life of our countryside when not understanding the delicate balance that exists is ridiculous. I am an urbanite. I visit the countryside but would not have the knowledge to know what is best for it. I am also prepared to accept the advice that a ban on hunting will lead to much more cruel and slower deaths for the foxes through poisoning, gassing, snaring and shooting where death can be slow. Those who believe that the fox will no longer be killed are deluding themselves because they are vermin.
But this subject will divide parties. The two major parties did not have 100% support either way and the smaller parties such as the Lib Dems were split down the middle, although being cynical you needed to look at where their seats were as that may well have determined the way they voted!
14 comments:
I realised the 'Countryside Alliance' were shysters early on. They put adverts in the press inviting people to 'find out find out more about the Countryside Alliance'. I clipped the coupon and sent it off. Next thing I know they send a letter saying that they have registered me as a supporter! Since when was 'finding out about' the same thing as supporting? If this is a matter solely for those who live in the countryside Kevin, can you explain the prevalence of 'Countryside Alliance' stickers and posters round Putney, Fulham and Chelsea? If those urbanites can have their say so can I.
I live in Kingston and am pleased to see foxes and badgers that live in my neighbourhood. I'm interested and I care and many people I know are too. I wish just there were still some hare to see but they've all disappeared now.
At last the MPs have been given an opportunity to vote according to their beliefs and consciences. Is there anything wrong with that? I can't sympathise with the 'but it'll split parties' bit. Divisions within parties are already there for all to see - some are more obvious than others though.
Forgive me for pointing out that residents in your area haven't raised the matter with you because you're not an MP and you don't get to vote. They also know that there's a clear majority of existing MPs who would ban hunting of hare, fox and deer with dogs and that is why they don't need to hypothesise with you about what you would do IF you had a vote (which you don't).
Kevin says that you can tell how Lib Dem MPs voted by where they are. How untrue. Andrew George has a country patch, as do David Laws and Brian Cotter, who all voted for a ban. Some of our city MPs voted against it,such as Mark Oaten, and it was a FREE vote.
Anne Widdecombe backed the ban, and many such as Michael Ancram abstained. I see that Ed abstained. Fair enough- his whole 8 will not be judged on it- his excellent actions on other subjects will. Roll on another 16,000 majority- and lets talk abour REAL issues that affect people of the constituency.
The density of foxes in Urban areas is much greater than in the countryside. FACT.
Rather than banning it, MP's should start encouraging the hunting of Urban Foxes. They kill and eat young domestic cats, rabbits, guinea pigs and wild squirrels, ducks and wildfowl. They break into bins - encouraging rats and disease. They make holes in fences allowing in burglars, and block up storm drains and sewers which leads to flooding.
And some idiots around Surbiton leave food out for them!
Surely the very basic tenets of LIberal Democracy should be of interest to "Liberal Democrats". And if you don't care about this then shame on you.
What is a Liberal Democracy?
It surely has to be Liberal - guaranteeing the freedoms of minorities to live their life as they see fit.
And it has to be Democratic which means one man one vote.
A purely democratic system can be nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. e.g. Hitler was elected by a majority of the German people, and elevated to Furhrer in a Referendum.
So a Liberal Democracy needs checks and balances.
Yes Tony Blair has a huge majority in the House of Commons - yet that does not entitle him to tell the (perhaps objectionable and snooty) Fox hunters what they can and can't do. With all the so called "Liberals" in hot pursuit, baying for blood, savouring the thrills and spills of class warfare.
The corresponding liberal check/balance is meant to be the second Chamber, the calm, thoughtful, revising chamber- The House of Lords.
As Kevin has wisely said here Blair has botched the whole job.
And now he can't get his way, even with his own appointees, he is rushing through this legislation and invoking the Parliament act which has only ever been used about eight times in all British History.
All true liberal democrats should oppsoe thsi illiberal undemocratic farce.
Funny how the Lib Dem anonymous agrees with Kevin that this is not a 'real' issue and should never have been voted on. He appears to be say that Ed Davey did not vote on the real issue; but Ed was bothered enough to turn up and vote on the procedural motions on foxhunting. Lib Dem fence sitting or worried about upsetting voters as usual? If he did not agree with it should he not be trying to defeat this wretched Government so we can get the Conservatices back to repeal this stupid ban!
Not sure what some of the comments are about because according to publicwhip.org.uk Davey voted to ban hunting.
The comment about the 16,000 majority is rather silly but if anonymous and his Lib Dem chums are going to be complacent then that is fine by me.
"David Laws" represents a rural seat? He represents Yeovil! It may be in the West Country but it ain't rural.
In any case at least the people in those seats will now have a clear choice as to whether they select Conservative MP's who stand up for their way of life or Lib Dems who betray them.
I am sorry for my mistake on Ed Davey. I must have skipped his name. So if he did vote, this whole 'on the fence' Lib dem issue is rubbish.
Different Lib Dems have different views on foxhunting. They come from differing backgrounds and have different ideologies on this issue, just like some Tories.
I think that David Laws does have a rural seat- if you care to look you will see that a large area of villages and countryside are covered- and Yeovil town only covers a part of his seat.
I am sure the Lib Dems in Surbiton (of which I am not a member) are not complacent- but looking at the byelections across the country in 2004- there is a net gain from Tories to the Lib Dems- and Lib dem opinion poll shares are up from about 14/15% before the last election to 23/24% now.
I never said that only sitting MPs are worthy. I was explaining why voters don't collar PPC Kevin Davis about the subject because he seems to believe that the voters in his area don't care about the issue.
And are the Government 'rushing' this through? I think not. The Labour have been promising to do something about it since 1997 and even the current proposals mean that the ban won't come in for 18 or is it 24 months?
Can someone enlighten me as to why hare coursing is legal? Are hare vermin? What damage to deer cause that warrants their being hunted down with dogs? What sort of people delight in the 'sport' of hunting foxes with dogs? HOW can killing be thought of as 'sport'?
Did I say that residents of Kingston do not collar me on this issue? I think I said that in all the issues that this country faces a ban on hunting is trivial and of little importance.
On the 'rushing' issue I agree that it has taken a long time to get to this stage. However, having dropped the issue they now come back and force it through in one day using procedural motions. I believe that even Ed Davey probaby agrees with me that this is wrong as he voted aginst the procedural motions that allowed this!
On hares I have no information. On deer also I know little but I do know that Richmond Park carries out an annual cull of deer to keep the numbers down. One presumes this is beacuse of the potential damage of over breeding?
You said "No one I have spoken to in Kingston & Surbiton in the past few months has raised with me their passion to have hunting banned.", which amounts to the same thing. I see that Kingston & Richmond MP Jenny Tonge reports that she's received more than 1,000 letters against hunting and just 6 in support. Clearly if you have a vote in parliament people will raise the issue with you. If not they won't. And by the way I can't see how being "born & bred" in the Royal Borough would qualify you any better than the incumbent MP for voting in the House of Commons on this or many other issues.....because it doesn't. I wasn't born in Kingston. Countless thousands of voters weren't. If you want to be elected then you'd be advised to reconsider whether your line about being the 'local' candidate matters.
Anonymous seems to ge arguing for the sake of arguing now.
As for his "drop the local" he clearly has no idea about how to win an election. I have read much of Kevin's blog and there are those who may question his strategy who have written here but they all agree that being local is a good thing and certainly much better than parachuting in from Nottingham which the current MP did.
Do tell me why being 'local' is such an important quality then. I'd love to know.
Cannot even believe that you are asking such an absurd question. Knowing the history of the place, having gone to school in the place and I presume Kevin sending his children to school in the place and having used the hospital for many years are all important parts of understanding the type of people you wish to represent. There is a big difference between a career politician who only came here to get elected to parliament and one who wants to get elected because he lives here and wants to represent the people he knows.
Why do the Lib Dems bang on all the time about being "local" when they often are not!
I was looking at another blog for the Hartlepool election and the only fight they seem to be having is over who has lived there the longest, even to the point that they discussed it on the evening news this week.
Post a Comment