Liadnan

It's strange to see this government upholding a manifesto pledge that dates back to 1997. In fact, it evokes a feeling I don't think I've experienced since the referendum on Scottish devolution took place. If I had to put the feeling into words, it would probably be, "Oh! This isn't actually a Conservative government after all!"

Not that I'm an ardent supporter of the rights of foxes, but I suppose those of us to the left of Tony Blair have to be grateful for the scraps that are occasionally thrown to us.

From:

red11.livejournal.com

The manifesto wasn't that specific, and "the government" didn't get what it proposed. The back-benchers got what they and an extensive lobby wanted, I think - but could you explain to me what this scrap is that you have been thrown ? Is it simply something that makes you happy, or is the world actually a better place from Feb 19 2005 ?

From:

The world is certainly not going to be a worse place after February 19th 2005.

You could replace the word "backbenchers" in your comment with "the majority of elected MPs" without altering the meaning one jot. I personally prefer the latter phrase, but would be tempted to take it one step further and amend it to "the electorate".

From:

red11.livejournal.com

I don't think it was "the majority of elected MPs". It was a majority of those that voted, but not an absolute majority.

So what principle is it that's been won ?

From:

As a member of the pro-hunt lobby, you're clearly very irked by this decision and would like someone to beat over the head in order to vent your frustration. I'm not going to be that person.

Ultimately, you're not going to succeed in portraying the ban as being anti-democratic in nature. But if you sincerely believe it is, it must be a relief to know that there will be a general election in the next 18 months, at which the hunting ban will no doubt be a central issue. The Conservative party might well come to power on the back of their pro-hunting stance, in which case I'll be proven wrong (but I sincerely doubt I will be).

From:

red11.livejournal.com

I'm not trying to vent anything - this was pretty much expected. I would like to know what you feel happy about - saying "banning fox hunting" ignores the debate over the last few months about animal welfare and alternative forms of fox control. You are not even going to be spared the sight of people in red coats riding horses. What is it that is making you happy ?

From:

I'm not especially happy about this particular decision, but I'm emphatically not unhappy about it. I see fox-hunting as a fairly barbarous activity, so there's a sense in which I'm a bit happier to be living in a country which now has one less form of legal barbarism.

That's just a kind of background happiness though - the issue of fox-hunting is nothing like as important to me as it is to you. If you want a serious debate on the issue, I'm not the person to be talking to. And as I said earlier, it's all up for grabs at the next general election, where I'm sure the Tories will be promising to shelve the ban. The energies of the pro-hunt lobby should be directed towards that, I'd suggest, rather than people like me who are simply disinclined towards barbarism.

From:

Don't worry about "fox control" - by far the most important form of fox control, in the form of people running them over, will carry on as before. Fox numbers are bounded by resources, as with pretty much any animal population, and plenty of them die on the roads; the few extra killed by hunting make no real difference.

Really, the arguments proffered in favour of the hunt remind me of nothing so much as the story stammered by a man found naked with another man's wife, trying to explain how they got paint on all their clothes and then while they were changing he was reaching for something and fell on top of her. People don't hunt foxes because they need to control their numbers - they do it because it's fun. If numbers were their main concern, they would stick to shooting them; it would be far cheaper, and somehow I don't think they were plumping for hunting because they were worried about cruelty to the fox...

From:

liadnan

I think the point S is making is that the manifesto committment was "to allow a debate and a free vote on hunting" (or some such form of words) not "to ban hunting". That does have some impact on the argument over whether using the Parliament Act is appropriate, though in fact in this iteration, unlike in previous sessions, it became a Government Bill (presumably unwhipped though) not a Private Members' Bill, which is important from the procedural point of view.

From:

It means that the Lords are not (as I once thought) in breach of the Salisbury Convention by refusing it, though they are sailing somewhat close to the wind.

Labour should be embarrassed to find themselves using the Parliament Act, though, given that they've just reformed the House of Lords...

From:

liadnan

If and when we get proper reform of the Upper House I strongly believe it should include a rethink of the Parliament Acts.

From:

Definitely. The Parliament Act is necessary while the Lords is the ridiculous thorn in the side of democracy that it is; if instead we had a democratic second chamber, it would be a gross abberation.

From:

the feeling round here is that this is going to mean more tourism for Ireland, albeit of the jodphurs and beagles kind...

From:

liadnan

Doubtless, though I wonder how amused the members of the existing Irish hunts will be by that.
No moves for a ban in the Republic then?

From:

not too amused, I suspect. nor the local farmers, either.

As for a ban, not that I've heard of - it's not like it's a common sport here or anything anyway (to the best of my knowledge, being a Dubliner, mind). it rather has a tendency to be considered as having disctinct colonial overtones in places, y'see

actually, just found this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-459682,00.html), which, while not recent, may give you an idea.

From:

liadnan

If the population of Ireland can sustain more than 80 hunts it must be reasonably popular: without doing the math's properly that seems a much higher number of hunts per head of pop than here: there are about 200 packs "in the UK" according to the BBC.
As for the substance of the article, I'm unsurprised.

From:

I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject, to be honest - the only contact I've ever had with any sort of hunting is listening to my mother rant about rural Limerick hunts and she has a rather large chip on certain subjects...

I'm wondering about the size or frequency of these hunts, though - I don't know how visible they would be, but I know I've never seen a hunt in all the driving I've done around the country in the last few years (not all on main roads, I might add!)

From:

clanwilliam.livejournal.com

You'd be amazed at the range of people who hunt though - Carlow Farmers, for example, has a field that can run the social gamut from Lord Rathdonnell to a visiting tinker who's managed to scare up a horse.

The Grafton Street Harriers (townies who come down just for the hunting) are unpopular enough without adding in British returners - a certain number of Brits will be welcome, but really only those who did come over and hunt in Ireland anyway.

Prepare for some broken necks as well - the Scarteen, for example, does stuff that absolutely *terrifies* seasoned hunters from the UK.

From:

liadnan

I suspect the Irish rural working class is in any event a much louder voice than the UK rural working class.

From:

clanwilliam.livejournal.com

It's also that a lot more of Ireland is related to the rural working class - look at the difference in how foot and mouth was handled, and also how the public reacted to it.

There was a farmer in Carlow who tried to prevent his (dubiously acquired stock) from being slaughtered on the grounds that they didn't have foot and mouth - he lost the case. I asked my father what would have happened if he'd won, and Dad's reply was that he would have come out the next morning and found his stock dead anyway.

When there was a foot and mouth outbreak (something that did touch my family directly as the affected farmer is married to my mother's second cousin and I think I used to play with his kids when I was a child, not to mention that half the farmers affected in the cull were related to me, the closest being my uncle), the border at that point was effectively shut. It was a two-hour wait to get through the checkpoints and DJs on TwoFM (the equivalent of Radio One for UK readers!) were warning people not to go to Belfast that way but to detour through Monaghan.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_hypatia_/

Most likely its bigger as a percentage of the population, including that which actually lives in the countryside.

I see an awful lot of comment from the CLA and others in the pro lobby about the impact on employment in the countryside, I can't help but wonder where they were through the 80s when farms were laying off workers like nobody's business to outsource farmwork to contractors (or more often using the same people as contractors on vastly reduced terms and conditions) and sell off the properties which would have gone to be staff housing or let them to holiday makers.

My brother's village can count the employed farmworkers on one hand these days where it used to be the main source of employment. There is a divide (and no small resentment) between people which was not so great when there was more of a 'shared interest' in the land around the area.

From:

I knew there would be someone more knowledgeable than this ignorant jackeen on the matter :>

From:

lizw.livejournal.com

*Thank you* for posting this. I'm also strongly against a ban, and have been feeling quite isolated as a result. I'd been toying with posting a poll to find out if I was really the only person I knew who thought this way, but wasn't sure I could cope with the answer.

I really hope the Countryside Alliance win on the Parliament Act point. It seems dangerous to me to have a second chamber which can be circumvented simply by having the first chamber pass an Act which says that it shall be circumvented.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_hypatia_/

I hope it doesn't succeed. This has nothing to do with the content of the bill and everything to do with my objection to an unelected (never mind partly hereditary) chamber blocking a bill passed by the elected chamber in a free vote.

I watched the last government use its in built majority in the Lords to push through legislation which was so unpopular that even with a majority in the commons it was hard to push through. The sight of doddering peers having to be directed to the House of Lords to actually vote on legislation at the behest of party whips, when they normally never went near the place, was not exactly an advert for a supposed democracy.

I can see some value in having specialists in a revising chamber who may not all be elected in the same way that the lower house is elected. I don't see why it should be able to push through or block legislation against the will of the elected house, whatever the issue.

From: