Sounds from the Labour conference

[PeterHenry]

As reported by the Guardian

It's quite a positive sound in my opinion, but that last sentence allows them some wriggle room.

[Yellow Bear]

If you believe that you will believe anything = as soon as they are in power the unions will put "Their " people in power and we are history.

As for Miliband, for a leader in the outfit that left the country broke in 9/10- he has room to talk!

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

If you believe that you will believe anything = as soon as they are in power the unions will put "Their " people in power and we are history.

As for Miliband, for a leader in the outfit that left the country broke in 9/10- he has room to talk!

I don't necessarily believe it (note sentence re wriggle room), but - for a moment - contrast it to the leadup to New Labour and the rethoric re Hunting.

[mossy835]

with them in things will not get better,we will be history in time.

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, mossy835 said:

with them in things will not get better,we will be history in time.

I'm not saying it will get better, and to be fair, everything will be history in time

What I was trying to imply is that its a rare positive noise (and not the first recently) from a party that is not a natural fan of field sports

[ditchman]

its all talk and deception..........just lie after lie..........they come out with guff like this to get folk onside..and then their votes....then when they are in.....we/you are stuffed....and countryside goes down the pan

[Yellow Bear]

15 minutes ago, ditchman said:

and countryside goes down the pan

Sorry Dm needed correcting,  lots of promises,  no substance of where the money is coming from except the old chestnut "tax the rich" which means anyone with an income not from the state.

[PeterHenry]

OK, OK, OK - I understand you all don't trust them, or indeed any politician for that matter - but its far more likely than not you're all going to have to live with them after the next election - hence the small chink of light I'm shareing

[enfieldspares]

Well guff or not the Tories have shown that they are no friends of gun ownership and indeed overuled the advice of their own Home Affairs Select Committee that there be no pistol ban after Dunblane. And instead implemented an outright ban. So do I trust the Tories...remember where are the promised ten year FACS and SGCs as a deal in imposing GP input...? No I do not!

[Yellow Bear]

3 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Well guff or not the Tories have shown that they are no friends of gun ownership and indeed overuled the advice of their own Home Affairs Select Committee that there be no pistol ban after Dunblane. And instead implemented an outright ban. So do I trust the Tories...remember where are the promised ten year FACS and SGCs as a deal in imposing GP input...? No I do not!

You are partially right but let us be correct in this.  No 1 was the Tories  number 2 Was B liar 

The act was created in response to the Snowdrop Petition following the Dunblane Massacre. The previous Conservative government had exceeded the recommendations of the Cullen Report and introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that banned "high calibre" handguns, greater than .22 calibre (5.6 mm). This new (No. 2) Act further prohibited the private possession of all cartridge handguns, regardless of calibre.

The only handguns still allowed following the ban were:

• Antique and muzzle-loading black-powder guns
• Firearms of historic interest whose ammunition is no longer available ("Section 7.1" firearms)
• Firearms of historic interest with current calibres ("Section 7.3" firearms)^{[note 1]}
• Air pistols^{[note 2]}
• Firearms which fall outside the Home Office definition of "small firearms".^{[note 3]}
• Pistols used by hunters for humane dispatch

[enfieldspares]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

 

The act was created in response to the Snowdrop Petition following the Dunblane Massacre. The previous Conservative government had exceeded the recommendations of the Cullen Report and introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that banned "high calibre" handguns, greater than .22 calibre (5.6 mm). This new (No. 2) Act further prohibited the private possession of all cartridge handguns, regardless of calibre.

 

Yes. Absolutely. The fullbore pistol ban was the Tories. Blair's No 2 banned smallbore as in .22 Rimfire pistols. But the Tory ban also mandated that any .22 Rimfire pistols that were allowed would ONLY be permitted if kept at a Home Office Designated Site (these were to be very very different from any ranges of existing Home Office Approved Clubs) and that they would not be allowed to be kept at home. Note that Blair also allowed s7 to continue at designates sites only (as per the Tories legislation).

Further by supposedly "alllowing" this continued ownership of .22 Rimfire pistols the Tories surrender scheme for compensation was very narrow and as I said to Michael Howard in conversation that the Blair ban meant that as it was a total ban the compensation scheme for .22 Rimfire had to be all encompassing.

As to the Tories designated sites the intent was that only a handful would be allowed (as was the case with s7 designated sites) and this was a device for benefit to a few Olympic and Commonwealth Games shooters. Not as a generous dispensation to you or I as run of the mill pleasure .22 Rimfire pistol shooters. So given that Blair's ban was for everybody and not a self-appointed coterie of "Olympic and Commonwealth marksmen" most preferred Blair's ban as it was for everybody and not as was the Tories ban for "the little people" only.

Edited October 9, 2023 by enfieldspares

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

I'm not saying it will get better, and to be fair, everything will be history in time

What I was trying to imply is that its a rare positive noise (and not the first recently) from a party that is not a natural fan of field sports

i understand what you are trying to say....you are a glass half full person...................i have seen and heard all the promises before...........thats why i have always said that any manifesto promise that is made......because it is a promise to the people/voters of this country........should be kept...if they have no intention of keeping the manifesto promise then that is fraud.........

one of the reasons MOMENTUM (corbyns lot) came to the fore....is because Corbyn made a promise that pot would be legal and tuition fees (uni) would be banned (or whatever you call it).....and money paid out already would be returned...........BLATENT BLOODY LIES ..........but the students and the young sucked it all up and loved it and voted for him.............

politicians are inherant liars ...its in their DNA

[JohnfromUK]

When in opposition, politicians can say what they like, because they are not having to deliver on the 'promises' made.  They will say almost anything to pick up votes.

If and when they get into office, three things happen;

1. They don't need votes again for around 4 years, so the 'wish to please' vanishes
2. Reality rears its head and they realise that actually getting changes done is hard - the 'ship of state' doesn't change course easily, especially if it's not what the "Sir Humphreys" want.
3. They find that putting 'ideas' into law is both difficult and expensive - and of course as ever there is no money.

Talking of 'no money' - from what I have heard from Rachel Reeves utterances (she is not a natural public speaker), money may not be a problem; she seems to think that ending 'non-dom' concessions will open up an infinite stream.  The number of times I have heard her reply when asked "How will you fund this?" that she will simply "end non-dom tax status" which will pay for it.  Windfall taxes on Banks and Energy Suppliers are to fund the rest.  Where do they get their money from?  Oh yes, the public's bills, mortgages etc.  Clearly if you can afford your gas electricity and mortgage, you have too much money and Labour wants it, but will do it by stealth by taxing the service provider.

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

When in opposition, politicians can say what they like, because they are not having to deliver on the 'promises' made.  They will say almost anything to pick up votes.

If and when they get into office, three things happen;

1. They don't need votes again for around 4 years, so the 'wish to please' vanishes
2. Reality rears its head and they realise that actually getting changes done is hard - the 'ship of state' doesn't change course easily, especially if it's not what the "Sir Humphreys" want.
3. They find that putting 'ideas' into law is both difficult and expensive - and of course as ever there is no money.

Talking of 'no money' - from what I have heard from Rachel Reeves utterances (she is not a natural public speaker), money may not be a problem; she seems to think that ending 'non-dom' concessions will open up an infinite stream.  The number of times I have heard her reply when asked "How will you fund this?" that she will simply "end non-dom tax status" which will pay for it.  Windfall taxes on Banks and Energy Suppliers are to fund the rest.  Where do they get their money from?  Oh yes, the public's bills, mortgages etc.  Clearly if you can afford your gas electricity and mortgage, you have too much money and Labour wants it, but will do it by stealth by taxing the service provider.

This is proof if any is needed of what will happen once elected

Labour's leadership has lost a showdown over the party's approach to nationalising critical infrastructure.

Delegates voted for a motion, proposed by Labour's largest backer, the union Unite, to "reaffirm" the party's commitment to public ownership of railways and the energy industry.

Labour must "make different choices", Unite's general secretary said.

[JohnfromUK]

52 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

This is proof if any is needed of what will happen once elected

John MacDonnell was speaking on R4 this morning and he was asked by the interviewer whether Kier Starmer had the policies and persona to win the next election.

MacDonnell replied that Starmer had two gifts; the Tories making a mess of things and the SNP in meltdown and those would put Starmer in office.  His job as leader was to win the election.  When questioned whether he had the right policies, MacDonnell said that it was for Starmer as leader to win the election, but then as in the democratic system operated by the Labour party, 'the membership' would 'dictate' the policies that a Labour government would follow.

[Fellside]

If you want REAL and RECENT examples of labour’s attitude to the countryside - look no further than Wales…… !!

P.S Thanks for sharing John. I appreciate your optimism and desperately hope that my assumptions re Labour are wrong - and that we don’t become another Wales. 

[JohnfromUK]

44 minutes ago, Fellside said:

I appreciate your optimism

Not sure why I came across as 'optimistic'.  I'm pretty pessimistic as (aside from the mainstream of politics and economics where I don't agree with them) I believe the Labour membership is broadly anti fieldsports and anti countryside.

[Lloyd90]

Best get prepared for the incoming change as the Tories are so unpopular at the moment I can see nothing but a Labour government coming. 
 

It’s not even that Labour are good or a credible alternative. 
 

They’re going to win off the back of the Tories being so useless and everyone being so annoyed / fed up of them! 
 

“Anything is better than this lot” is going to win the next election. 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Anything is better than this lot” is going to win the next election.

Correct and also applies in Scotland re the SNP where Labour will pick up most of their seats.

Edited October 10, 2023 by JohnfromUK

[Poor Shot]

51 minutes ago, Fellside said:

If you want REAL and RECENT examples of labour’s attitude to the countryside - look no further than Wales…… !!

P.S Thanks for sharing John. I appreciate your optimism and desperately hope that my assumptions re Labour are wrong - and that we don’t become another Wales. 

Yes, please learn from our misfortune. 

Despite the words of one single Labor MP, they are not your friend and will certainly have the destruction of fieldsports, farming and any other country based pastime/hobby/pursuit very near to the top of the agenda. 

Like it or not, Labor are in at the next GE so you'd better buckle up and keep your Org subs up to date. Fieldsports will be an easy win for a party desperate to prove that they didn't just win by default. 

 

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Correct and also applies in Scotland re the SNP where Labour will pick up most of their seats.

If Labour don’t pick up pretty much all of the SNP seats they’re going to struggle. 
 

The SNP dodgy finances has done Labour a big favour.

[Conor O'Gorman]

The source of quote is from a speech that Steve Reed gave at the joint BASC and Angling Trust rural reception at Labour’s autumn conference in Liverpool yesterday. More details here:

https://basc.org.uk/labour-support-for-sustainable-shooting-highlighted-at-party-conference/

[PeterHenry]

Hmmm, yes - perhaps not quite so positive as things seemed at first glance.....

Still, they know they have to win rural seats, and they know the hunting act caused them no end of bother last time, so hears to hoping that electoral arithmetic keeps them in check.....

[mossy835]

i dont belive what labour says a bout shooting,

[Genghis]

21 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Well guff or not the Tories have shown that they are no friends of gun ownership and indeed overuled the advice of their own Home Affairs Select Committee that there be no pistol ban after Dunblane. And instead implemented an outright ban. So do I trust the Tories...remember where are the promised ten year FACS and SGCs as a deal in imposing GP input...? No I do not!

I understand what you’re saying, but most of the Tory government from 1997 are either retired or dead. All of the calls for increased gun control in the past 2 years have come from Labour.

 

The wording in this quote is interesting . There’s been a lot of talk since Plymouth as to how somebody living in a town should not own a gun, and the proposal for shooters to store guns at a gun club instead of home keeps rearing its ugly head. Until Labour denies this then will pursue this then I cannot support them.