Jump to content

Vote on Fox Hunting Dropped


TriBsa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Prime Minister Theresa May has dropped plans to hold a vote on the fox-hunting ban during this parliament.

The Conservatives promised a vote on repealing the Hunting Act - which bans the use of dogs to hunt foxes and wild mammals in England and Wales - during the 2017 general election campaign.

But Mrs May told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show there was a "clear message" against it from the public.

Quote

Mrs May, who has previously shown support for fox-hunting, told the Andrew Marr Show she had not changed her "personal view", but had listened to the "messages" she got during the election.

"My own view has not changed but as prime minister, my job isn't just about what I think about something, it's actually about looking at what the view of the country is," she said.

"I think there was a clear message about that and that's why I say there won't be a vote on fox-hunting during this parliament."

The announcement was welcomed by anti-hunting campaigners

So another broken electoral pledge. Makes you wonder who she listens to, certainly not country folk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It puzzles me why they give any time to hunting at all. Nobody takes any notice anyway.

I'd say there are more people hunting and more followers now than ever, banning it didn't make any difference as far as I can tell around here.

The government should spend their time on more important things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of dropping the manifesto promise for this parliament. (Note she didn't say this would not reappear during a future parliament!) ........the fact is, that with a minority government dependant on other parties to just about function.........there is no chance of winning any vote to repeal the hunting with dogs act anyway!

As for the time to  repeal the act......Bliar used around 700 hours of parliamentary time to get the hunting with dogs act into law (it was never passed because he invoked the parliament act to sidestep democracy and get it through!)........compare this with the 7 hours of parliamentary time he spent to take this country into the war in Iraq!!!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

So another broken electoral pledge. Makes you wonder who she listens to, certainly not country folk.

 

The majority of the population. The reality is that there are more people in support of the ban than there are against it. That is now probably true of MPs as well as the public, so there's no point in calling a free vote on it. She would lose it, so why advertise the weakness of the government any more that it is already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

The majority of the population. The reality is that there are more people in support of the ban than there are against it. That is now probably true of MPs as well as the public, so there's no point in calling a free vote on it. She would lose it, so why advertise the weakness of the government any more that it is already?

So why put it in the manifesto?

She seems to have rather selective hearing when it comes to listening to the majority of the population, immigration springs to mind. The jury is still out on Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

So why put it in the manifesto?

She seems to have rather selective hearing when it comes to listening to the majority of the population, immigration springs to mind. The jury is still out on Brexit.

because she went to the electorate hoping/expecting to make a small majority into a bigger majority. With a bigger majority she could have won a parliamentary vote. Instead she turned a small majority into no majority at all, so any promise that relied on a good tory majority in the commons was always going to be dead in the water

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

It's not a matter of dropping the manifesto promise for this parliament. (Note she didn't say this would not reappear during a future parliament!) ........the fact is, that with a minority government dependant on other parties to just about function.........there is no chance of winning any vote to repeal the hunting with dogs act anyway!

As for the time to  repeal the act......Bliar used around 700 hours of parliamentary time to get the hunting with dogs act into law (it was never passed because he invoked the parliament act to sidestep democracy and get it through!)........compare this with the 7 hours of parliamentary time he spent to take this country into the war in Iraq!!!

..and he still won`t keep quiet !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

So why put it in the manifesto?

 

Exactly:  Before 'the Manifesto' she had a pretty good chance of getting a decent majority - and then she publishes 'that Manifesto' which talks about (promise is something 'ploticians' understand differently to us mortals);

  • Hunting (a well known toxic issue with a majority of the public) - even if you want to do it, don't mention it at manifesto stage
  • Reducing pensions triple lock (in fact this made no economic difference as inflation was to exceed 2.5% anyway - it just lost votes of the pensioners, amongst whom the majority are Tory voters)
  • Making people sell homes etc to pay for dementia care etc.  (Obviously a toxic issue - no one wants to have to see their house sold against their wishes)

Fact is - either her advisers were completely barking mad, or in the pay of Jeremy Corbin.  She was stupid enough to listen to them.

The moment 'that Manifesto' was published it was totally obvious to most sensible people  she had no respect at all for what (the majority of) people want.

 

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have people not yet realized that the hunting ban along with the desire to ban Grouse shooting and Driven Pheasant shooting has very little or nothing to do with supposed animal cruelty, as often  is stated by the left wing so called right brigade, and everything to do with class conflict as viewed by the left wing - they cannot get it into their narrow minded brains that they are not "Toff" pastimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

Have people not yet realized that the hunting ban along with the desire to ban Grouse shooting and Driven Pheasant shooting has very little or nothing to do with supposed animal cruelty, as often  is stated by the left wing so called right brigade, and everything to do with class conflict as viewed by the left wing - they cannot get it into their narrow minded brains that they are not "Toff" pastimes.

No, I actually think (a great many anyway) people haven't really realised ....... any more than they have realised that;

  • 'free' higher education won't happen
  • nationalisation doesn't really suddenly make the world run efficiently
  • if you take all Bill Gates and Phillip Green's money and give it to the treasury, you won't make us all wealthy suddenly

Unfortunately, actually visiting a hunt does little to dispel the notion; smart red coats, well turned out horses from smart horseboxes, newish rangerovers and similar.  Of course there are people who turn up in an old van and tatty barbour, but the image of wealth is easy for all to portray simple because it is there to be filmed, photographed and for all to see.  Ditto grouse shooting (even walked up isn't exactly cheap) ditto driven pheasant shooting.

In a way, it's a bit like the lottery; we all actually know the chances of winning are infinitesimal, but people have been convinced they might win - and so buy in because what they have taken from the publicity is the message "it could be you".

Fox hunting is no more cruel that the lions in the Serengetti killing antelopes - and people LOVE that on TV narrated by David Attenborough.  Nature can be 'cruel' - and that is just how it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are folks surprised at this 

I shan’t comment as I will get an instant ban , just to say I have followed fox packs and hunted foxs with dogs for nearly 35 years .

As a avid shooter and fisherman I have had more negative comments aimed at me and hunting folk from anglers and game shooters then I care to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, washerboy said:

I have followed fox packs and hunted foxs with dogs for nearly 35 years .

As a avid shooter and fisherman I have had more negative comments aimed at me and hunting folk from anglers and game shooters then I care to think about.

I have followed the hunt in the past occasionally.  I think it was a great shame it was banned - and Blair certainly should have got on with more important things (mind you he would probably have made a pigs ear of them as well, but that is another issue).  Most shooters and fishermen I know support hunting, but don't actively participate.  I would like to see Blairs ban overturned, but agree with others that there are (much) more important issues at present (and always as far as I can remember).  Sadly, IF the Tories ever got the ban reversed, the next Labour government (whenever that is) would put it back - and it is all such a waste if time and effort .........

I do accept that is a very bad reason to 'give in', but don't see another realistic way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being around Lurcher and terriers I have found sadly that over the last 10 years or so that the attitude regarding lawful hunting has got worse.Young lads are going out of their way to dig or run illegal stuff and sorry but we are all tarred with the same brush.

i can see within the next 3 or 4 years a total ban of any type of dog work that involves birds or animals, be it flushing a pheasant or killing a rat .Hope to god I am wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, washerboy said:

Being around Lurcher and terriers I have found sadly that over the last 10 years or so that the attitude regarding lawful hunting has got worse.Young lads are going out of their way to dig or run illegal stuff and sorry but we are all tarred with the same brush.

i can see within the next 3 or 4 years a total ban of any type of dog work that involves birds or animals, be it flushing a pheasant or killing a rat .Hope to god I am wrong 

I hope you are too ☹ 

as for perceived class difference of folk who hunt and or shoot driven game, even if it was true that we are all in the toff class why should that have any bearing on it. After all polo is a upper class sport and nobody seems to want to ban that on the grounds that the common man cannot afford it. We seem to live in a society that does not tolerate those that have wealth unless they are an over paid footballer or lottery winner. I do think the whole anti thing is based on a wrongly perceived idea of the type of people involved in field sports rather than any animal rights theme as people cannot be stupid enough or hypocritical enough to actually believe what they say.

Edited by ips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, washerboy said:

Why are folks surprised at this 

I shan’t comment as I will get an instant ban , just to say I have followed fox packs and hunted foxs with dogs for nearly 35 years .

As a avid shooter and fisherman I have had more negative comments aimed at me and hunting folk from anglers and game shooters then I care to think about.

I am a shooter and a fisherman.....not a fox hunter, it is not something that "blows my skirt up!" but I support the right of those who choose to do it....and as such I attended all the marches in London in support of it! I too wish to see the Hunting with Dogs Act repealed, as it nothing more that a dishonest, spiteful, misguided attack on what is perceived, by left wing elements, as a sport only for the privileged!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its always about class, even though you could say fox hunters are at one end and lurcher men are at the other, both were happy hunting the same quarry in different ways.

As for May not trying to reverse the ban, good, waste of time and money, labour party would jump all over it and things would be worse than they already are, no chance of winning the vote so don't stir the pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...