Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[edwin_m]

Hopefully she's shot herself in the foot as the majority of the public don't want fox hunting (and certainly not the Labour supporters she wants to switch sides) so she could now get a smaller majority which won't let her do whatever she wants.

Sounds like another move to appease the potential UKIP voting far right. Will capital punishment be next?

 

[Butts]

Hopefully she's shot herself in the foot as the majority of the public don't want fox hunting (and certainly not the Labour supporters she wants to switch sides) so she could now get a smaller majority which won't let her do whatever she wants.

Talk about clutching at straws

I'm sure most Electors have more pressing matters on their minds.

 

[ExRes]

Sounds like another move to appease the potential UKIP voting far right. Will capital punishment be next?

I'm sure it will be, but only for those that voted remain

 

[Bromley boy]

Unfortunately fox hunting etc. are an example of what happens with a Tory government facing no functioning opposition.

Today Corbyn said the issue of leaving the EU is "settled" when launching his election campaign. A few hours later he refused to commit to leaving the EU if he becomes PM when pressed by the BBC.

Media bias aside, this kind of thing doesn't inspire any confidence that he even knows what his own view on the issue is, let alone what he would do about the matter in government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ister-win-general-labour-leader-a7726551.html

 

[edwin_m]

I think you'll find that what she actually said was that a free vote would be held in the next parliament in line with the Conservative party commitment

She actually said:

"As it happens, personally, I've always been in favour of fox hunting and we maintain our commitment - we had a commitment previously - as a Conservative Party to allow a free vote and that would allow Parliament to take a decision on this,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

 

[me123]

Hopefully she's shot herself in the foot as the majority of the public don't want fox hunting (and certainly not the Labour supporters she wants to switch sides) so she could now get a smaller majority which won't let her do whatever she wants.

Theresa May could just about get away with saying just about anything and she'll still win a thumping majority. Sounds like a perfect time to appease those on the Tory benches who want to bring back the barbaric "sport" that is fox hunting. I doubt that fox hunting is high on the agenda for many people.

 

[ExRes]

She actually said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39861011

I don't really think it matters what her personal stance on the subject is, she is entitled to one choice in a free vote, the same as the other 649 voters

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't really think it matters what her personal stance on the subject is, she is entitled to one choice in a free vote, the same as the other 649 voters

It's a very marginal subject. My question is why this issue justifies any parliamentary time at all, in times of the most extreme political turmoil in living memory.

 

[ExRes]

It's a very marginal subject. My question is why this issue justifies any parliamentary time at all, in times of the most extreme political turmoil in living memory.

It probably doesn't, but it's a media headline and that means it has to get top billing, since when are we supposed to worry about important things?

 

[Bromley boy]

It probably doesn't, but it's a media headline and that means it has to get top billing, since when are we supposed to worry about important things?

Probably true.

And we wonder why the UK electorate is disengaged from politics...

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a very marginal subject. My question is why this issue justifies any parliamentary time at all, in times of the most extreme political turmoil in living memory.

It doesn't, but I recall the previous debate when Labour had it banned was unfortunately framed around class and the urban/rural divide.

Personally I don't like the idea of fox hunting but I know some very nice people who go fox hunting, so I'm not too bothered one way or the other.

 

[Bromley boy]

It doesn't, but I recall the previous debate when Labour had it banned was unfortunately framed around class and the urban/rural divide.

Personally I don't like the idea of fox hunting but I know some very nice people who go fox hunting, so I'm not too bothered one way or the other.

In fairness the urban/rural divide is very relevant. I know someone who goes grouse shooting. He's a nice bloke, too. Personally I find it distasteful*, but at least it's a quick death for the animal concerned + I believe they eat the killed birds afterwards.

When it comes to fox hunting I'm afraid I agree with Oscar Wilde's immortal description: "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable!".

*then again I killed six pigeons with a train, in one shift, earlier this week. So who am I to criticise!? No comment on whether I enjoyed doing it .

 

[Temple Meads]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who enjoys killing an animal for nothing more than enjoyment, and those who support them, are disgusting.

 

[meridian2]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who enjoys killing an animal for nothing more than enjoyment, and those who support them, are disgusting.

I enjoy fishing. The main reason freshwater fish survived in this small and over-industrialised island is down to the intervention of anglers, especially the ACA. If left to market pressure most would have turned belly up or been eaten to extinction, as they were in France.

To upbraid anglers for their sporting choices while ignoring chemical spills that suffocate hundreds of thousands of fish, is like condemning shooting but viewing the slaughter of pigeons and pheasants by car bonnet as unavoidable.

 

[Antman]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who enjoys killing an animal for nothing more than enjoyment, and those who support them, are disgusting.

I totally agree.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sounds like another move to appease the potential UKIP voting far right. Will capital punishment be next?

If that matter emboldened above was put to the electorate in a referendum, noting how many of the electorate voted on the last one betraying many who had no idea whatsoever of the nuances involved, how do you feel that the result would be that what most politicians would prefer to be the case.

 

[Bromley boy]

If that matter emboldened above was put to the electorate in a referendum, noting how many of the electorate voted on the last one betraying many who had no idea whatsoever of the nuances involved, how do you feel that the result would be that what most politicians would prefer to be the case.

What does that question actually ask!? I can't even begin to interpret it.

Bedtime for me, and hopefully for you!

 

[meridian2]

If that matter emboldened above was put to the electorate in a referendum, noting how many of the electorate voted on the last one betraying many who had no idea whatsoever of the nuances involved, how do you feel that the result would be that what most politicians would prefer to be the case.

Capital punishment is an interesting question. I'm instinctively against it because it isn't state killing in the true sense, it's the judiciary paying a bloke who doesn't mind killing people he's never met for money, which is wrong on a number of levels.
However if the murder rate were to substantially fall based on its reinstitution, it would be very difficult to argue against it as a social good. The problem is although the murder rate has doubled since the abolition of the death penalty, other factors have to be taken into account for that increase, and by 2012 it was falling fairly dramatically from 2002 with over 1000 a year (172 attributable to Harold Shipman), to half that figure by 2012. Crime as a whole in England and Wales has fallen 40% since 1984 while the willingness to report crime has increased. The big increases are in knife crime which is not covered by the recall of capital punishment except for murder.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the last vote on capital punishment was in 1983, probably the most right wing house of commons since it was abolished but they still voted against. This is one of those issues where many people's gut reaction goes one way but if they consider it more deeply, as the MPs did, they can see the problems such as the issue of incorrect conviction and the fact that if people aren't deterred by the prospect of several decades in prison they probably won't be deterred by the prospect of hanging. Generally speaking people kill others in the heat of the moment, due to being mentally unbalanced or because they have an apparently foolproof plan to avoid being caught. In any of these the nature of the punishment probably doesn't influence the act.

 

[meridian2]

Generally speaking people kill others in the heat of the moment, due to being mentally unbalanced or because they have an apparently foolproof plan to avoid being caught. In any of these the nature of the punishment probably doesn't influence the act.

I agree but there's also a group who carry weapons in the pursuit of robbery, and are casual about using them if necessary. All are impervious to capital punishment to some extent, though the latter are the most likely to think twice.

 

[pemma]

Talk about clutching at straws

I'm sure most Electors have more pressing matters on their minds.

Mrs May has tried hard to give the impression that her Conservative government is more to the centre than previous ones. I don't ever recall a Conservative leader in my lifetime calling the party 'The Conservative and Unionist Party' or one that avoids using the Conservative brand in campaigning (she keeps telling us to vote for her and her team rather than Conservative.)

Yet with a fox hunting vote she's effectively said she is just the same as every Conservative leader before her. Yes voters will have more pressing matters on their minds which is precisely why it's an unusual step - it makes it look like she thinks fox hunting is more important than taxation - which she's constantly tried to avoid answering questions on.

 

[Butts]

Mrs May has tried hard to give the impression that her Conservative government is more to the centre than previous ones. I don't ever recall a Conservative leader in my lifetime calling the party 'The Conservative and Unionist Party' or one that avoids using the Conservative brand in campaigning (she keeps telling us to vote for her and her team rather than Conservative.)

Yet with a fox hunting vote she's effectively said she is just the same as every Conservative leader before her. Yes voters will have more pressing matters on their minds which is precisely why it's an unusual step - it makes it look like she thinks fox hunting is more important than taxation - which she's constantly tried to avoid answering questions on.

There may () be some merit in what you say. However a lot of Conservative MP's are opposed to Hunting so I can't see the ban being reversed.

 

[Antman]

There may () be some merit in what you say. However a lot of Conservative MP's are opposed to Hunting so I can't see the ban being reversed.

I certainly hope you're right.

I think she has made a gaffe mentioning fox hunting, most of those in favour would probably vote conservative anyway and all she's likely to do is lose votes?

 

[Antman]

Capital punishment is an interesting question. I'm instinctively against it because it isn't state killing in the true sense, it's the judiciary paying a bloke who doesn't mind killing people he's never met for money, which is wrong on a number of levels.
However if the murder rate were to substantially fall based on its reinstitution, it would be very difficult to argue against it as a social good. The problem is although the murder rate has doubled since the abolition of the death penalty, other factors have to be taken into account for that increase, and by 2012 it was falling fairly dramatically from 2002 with over 1000 a year (172 attributable to Harold Shipman), to half that figure by 2012. Crime as a whole in England and Wales has fallen 40% since 1984 while the willingness to report crime has increased. The big increases are in knife crime which is not covered by the recall of capital punishment except for murder.

I don't see any logic in that at all quite honestly.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, I'm not particularly in favour of it but I can't help feeling it is a necessary evil provided of course there was no doubt whatsoever about guilt, Peter Sutcliffe for example.

 

[meridian2]

I don't see any logic in that at all quite honestly.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, I'm not particularly in favour of it but I can't help feeling it is a necessary evil provided of course there was no doubt whatsoever about guilt, Peter Sutcliffe for example.

The point is people don't die at the hands of the state, unless there's a judicially sanctioned lynch mob, but at the hands of a professional killer paid out of public money to do their dirty work. Add the physical and emotional apparatus surrounding judicial killing and it becomes a grim business indeed.

I agree that for unrepentant serial killers, child murderers, psychopaths like Shipman the reasons to allow them to remain live are difficult to support, especially bearing in mind the cost to the public purse and the feelings of the victim's family, but is paying a hired killer an appropriate way of settling the issue? Albert Pierrepoint became convinced hanging was ineffective as a deterrent, and he was the last man to look into the eyes of hundreds of condemned prisoners.

 

[AlterEgo]

No charges will be brought over the battle bus, it seems. According to the BBC.

 

[EM2]

I agree that for unrepentant serial killers, child murderers, psychopaths like Shipman the reasons to allow them to remain live are difficult to support, especially bearing in mind the cost to the public purse and the feelings of the victim's family, but is paying a hired killer an appropriate way of settling the issue?

Also, and looking at it a slightly different way, there's also a fair amount of research that shows that people in those categories want to die, hence why many of them commit, or try to commit, suicide in prison.
Yes, it does cost a lot of money to keep them locked up but why should the state give them what they want?

 

[Tetchytyke]

No charges will be brought over the battle bus, it seems. According to the BBC.

I've just fallen off my chair in shock.

What a cover-up.

 

[Antman]

No charges will be brought over the battle bus, it seems. According to the BBC.

What charges could have been brought?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What charges could have been brought?

It was as blatant a case of election expenses fraud as you will ever see- the Electoral Commission fined them a record £70,000 for it- but the CPS have all the backbone of a jellyfish.

It's not a surprise. And without criminal sanctions, they can just add the £70k to the cost of doing an election, which is all they will do this time too.

The whole thing stinks. But a Tory, being corrupt? Perish the thought.