Time to get paranoid??!!
Discussion
There's an opinion piece on this matter in the telegraph today ( http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk - I'd post a link, but they don't work as you have to register)
A little extract though:
A little extract though:
quote:
What those outside the hunting field and the animal rights lobbies need to think about are the political implications of such a ban. To ask Parliament to turn something of which people disapprove into a criminal offence is a big and a dangerous step for any government to take.
But if the Lords rejected a ban passed by the Commons and favoured the compromise that some senior ministers want, then it is unlikely that this Government would invoke the Parliament Act and push through a ban. There would probably be further discussions.
That is for the future. But before people start to lobby MPs and peers about the coming debates, they should weigh up what is at stake here. Those who declare that this is about liberty do not overstate the case.
For if hunting is banished, a very wide door will have been opened, through which those who dislike other men's customs will seek eagerly to march.
quote:
To Andy and the others on here who feel strongly about this - have you thought of joining the Countryside Alliance? You might not be too bothered about a lot of the things they lobby about, but they are the main source of opposition to the hunting ban, and are looking at the constitutional aspects as well - see www.countryside-alliance.org/features/020228jj.htm
(FWIW, I'm a "townie", never hunted, probably never will, don't know anyone who does, so no vested interests here - I just feel strongly about all this!)
I don't hunt myself either, never have, probably never will. Don't know really enough about it to be a major hunt supporter, but likewise I would want to know a whole hell of alot more about it before I would vote for it to be banned.
As I said before my Paranoia is not about the hunting issue per se, so much as it is about how easy it is for this Govt to decide to pick on law abiding individuals simply because it will curry favour with the (propoganda fed) masses and pay off his MPs.
We all know how certain sections of society feel about motorbikes and sports cars and all the things Petrolheadistas love, and it aint all lovey dovey!
If believed the propoganda you would not assume that most of us are law abiding (speeding aside) and that we pay our taxes.
We know we are being demonised in the media by this Government and their puppet Chiefs of Police because we see it every day. The march of their propoganda against us never stops.
If they can ban fox hunting cos its a popular thing to do right now, then they can create a climate of public opinion where they can ban all the following: motorbikes from National Parks (oops, tried that one), cars from Cities (started on that one too) , people buying second homes (oops they already tried this one), companies from setting their own salary scales (Directors pay scandal sound familiar), ethnic minorities from voting, Muslims, Jews, catholics, Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, all elections (we know best how to rule), Meat eating (might as well, they've already destroyed farming), - you name it they can ban it on the grounds of what was on the front page of last weeks SUN newspaper. ( a headline that no doubt the Government spin doctors will have created in the first place)
The frightening thing is that most people are completely oblivious to this blatant manipulation of the truth for political ends.
One other thought, Do you know why the hunting ban bill didn't get passed last time?
Bet most of you think it's cos it got voted down in the House of Lords. After all thats what Tony said on the telly. Indeed he used it as an example of the unelected house going against the wishes of the elected chamber and said it was another good reason for HOL reform.
Check the records. Believe it or not, the last hunting bill never went back to the Lords! The Lords did not vote it down! How on earth did Blair get away with saying that without being challenged? When you can answer that last question you begin to see why I believe the threat to our freedom of choice is far bigger than we imagine.
The Fox hunting ban is a payoff to Blair's backbenchers. Once it's gone you can bet your boots he will be casting his eye around, looking for the another set of unpopular victims that will need to be sacrificed when he next needs to pay his political debts. From where I'm sitting I reckon thats us boys!
Andy 400se
I'm not a hunting fan, I disapprove of it really, especially the hare coursing type thing which is just to satisfy the blood lust of a few spectators. However I don't like things being banned and I hate this governments continual chipping away at personal freedoms.
There may be an upside to this attempted ban. If Tony
and his Cronies manage to alienate another large section of society then it reduces their chances of re-election and that can only be a good thing. 
There may be an upside to this attempted ban. If Tony
and his Cronies manage to alienate another large section of society then it reduces their chances of re-election and that can only be a good thing. We live, just about, in a democracy. Logically that should be a system where the wishes of the masses dictate the law of the land. Like it or not, if more people don't like something then you may have to accept you can't do it any more - you may not agree with their opinion but you have to respect their right to have one.
At least that's the theory.
In practice we live with a system which is so biased towards one party in terms of their voting majority that any opposition may prove to be ineffectual. I can write to my MP all I like, but his one voice in a debate counts for little when it comes to totting up the votes.
Sadly the population of this country is entirely to blame for this state of affairs - we choose our MPs and we trust them, blindly, to act in our best interests. I would be amazed if more than about 1% of the population actually made an effort to contact their MP and exercise their right to democracy.
Personally I think it's high time we moved away from trusting MPs to make all of our decisions and moved towards a system where we all get to vote on publicly emotive issues like this.
The BLiar administration is, IMNSHO, entirely responsible for turning politics into nothing more than a soap opera. It's gone beyond a joke and this sort of political manouvering to distract the public from a minister's shortcomings is, at best, insulting and at worst a gross abuse of power.
At least that's the theory.
In practice we live with a system which is so biased towards one party in terms of their voting majority that any opposition may prove to be ineffectual. I can write to my MP all I like, but his one voice in a debate counts for little when it comes to totting up the votes.
Sadly the population of this country is entirely to blame for this state of affairs - we choose our MPs and we trust them, blindly, to act in our best interests. I would be amazed if more than about 1% of the population actually made an effort to contact their MP and exercise their right to democracy.
Personally I think it's high time we moved away from trusting MPs to make all of our decisions and moved towards a system where we all get to vote on publicly emotive issues like this.
The BLiar administration is, IMNSHO, entirely responsible for turning politics into nothing more than a soap opera. It's gone beyond a joke and this sort of political manouvering to distract the public from a minister's shortcomings is, at best, insulting and at worst a gross abuse of power.
quote:I'm afraid we disagree on this point... the democratic process allows us to choose our political leaders who are then mandated to run the country as they see best within legal/constitutional bounds (written and unwritten).
We live, just about, in a democracy. Logically that should be a system where the wishes of the masses dictate the law of the land. Like it or not, if more people don't like something then you may have to accept you can't do it any more - you may not agree with their opinion but you have to respect their right to have one.
Their role *must* include that of protecting minority interests - for something of a good definition, I think Article 8 of the ECHR serves well.
There would be some truly gruesome problems arising if the simple rule of the majority (mob rule) were in force - can you see it difficult to get 50% of the people in this country to vote to ban things that they find notionally unpleasant???
Think race, religion, sexual orientation, eating meat, riding motorcycles, hunting, fishing, going to places from where exotic diseases can be picked up etc ..
It may well be beneficial to have an annual ballot like many US states do, on which many proposals put by public and political elements can be voted upon. It would certainly help to generate the impression that ours is a political system in which the people have a say - but frankly, who's to say that the American system works any better - where even with seperate elections of congress, senate, judiciary and president (at 2, 4 & 6 year intervals) and these annual referenda they still have a country run by self important avaricious lawyers and a president with the apparent intellectual & philosophical capacity of Channel 5. IMHO, for all the 'people-power', the US system works no better than our own..
just as a postscript to the above, I'm reading a book at the moment by John Adams called Risk.
Look it up on Amazon - it's an incredibly illuminating book - basically it postulates that the Kelvinist risk-management strategies of USA & Britain since the early 80s have given rise to the risk-averse, cotton-wool, sue everybody attitudes which now prevail and have casting votes on issues such as road safety..
It goes on to throw this into sharp relief by illustrating that risk-management is an exercise in futility being as measuring risk causes that risk to change. Example? Well let's consider the people living on those 10 "most dangerous roads". These having been measured and indentified as particularly dangerous, the public will adapt to this and as a result, the accident figures will reduce without any traffic control measures being introduced... at the same time, traffic controls will be introduced and these will take the credit for reducing the accident figures...
It's quite complex at points, but it's giving me a whole new way of looking at not only road safety issues, but environmental and other issues as well as helping me to understand the anthropological reasons why people divide into these opposing groups of greens and motorists and hunters etc..
Look it up on Amazon - it's an incredibly illuminating book - basically it postulates that the Kelvinist risk-management strategies of USA & Britain since the early 80s have given rise to the risk-averse, cotton-wool, sue everybody attitudes which now prevail and have casting votes on issues such as road safety..
It goes on to throw this into sharp relief by illustrating that risk-management is an exercise in futility being as measuring risk causes that risk to change. Example? Well let's consider the people living on those 10 "most dangerous roads". These having been measured and indentified as particularly dangerous, the public will adapt to this and as a result, the accident figures will reduce without any traffic control measures being introduced... at the same time, traffic controls will be introduced and these will take the credit for reducing the accident figures...
It's quite complex at points, but it's giving me a whole new way of looking at not only road safety issues, but environmental and other issues as well as helping me to understand the anthropological reasons why people divide into these opposing groups of greens and motorists and hunters etc..
Well it's Friday afternoon and I was a bit bored !!! I hadn't been back for a few months and thought it was time for a return visit to Horse and Hound. You'll all be glad to know they've all been slagging us down in our absence and are still as bad as ever. I didn't even bother going to the Hunting threads they seem to have gone out of control. Go have a play boys.
www.foot-and-mouth-disease.co.uk/cgi-bin/HHThreads/wwwthreads.pl?action=list&Board=hholatest
Oh bollox the links all wonky but it works if you cut and paste.
>> Edited by mel on Friday 1st March 21:31
www.foot-and-mouth-disease.co.uk/cgi-bin/HHThreads/wwwthreads.pl?action=list&Board=hholatest
Oh bollox the links all wonky but it works if you cut and paste.
>> Edited by mel on Friday 1st March 21:31
quote:
The other is certain varieties of shark. You can bet yer bum if shark hunting were done in areas populated by humans there wouldn't be an outcry (yes I realise foxes don't hunt humans)
I would love to know which species of shark kill for fun. Enlighten me please. Certain Sharks are protected species in many waters.
I also think Fox Hunting should be banned. I agree that they need culling, but shooting them (if done correctly) will not cause them too much pain and suffering. If you don't think Fox hunting is cruel, why not run away from me when I have my Crossbow and we'll see how much fun you have. I would also like people to avoid anything made in Korea, but that is another story.
As for the Byers affair, it is just Another example of Spin that this Govt seems to be using at every opportunity to deflect people away from the fact that they are completely crap. He should be sacked for blatantly lying, but then we would have NO politicians left would we.. Sorry, there might be about two..
I'm neither a suppoter or "knocker" of hunting but it seems to me that if a fox is hunted with hounds then it either get clean away or is despatched very quickly.With shooting or trapping there is a great danger of the fox being injured rather than killed and taking a long time to die.As someone said they didn't want this to turn into a hunting debate I'll leave it there.
Im glad a few other people share my disquiet about the activities of this government. They are drunk with power, and as Henry Kissinger said, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". this pressent administration is a self-absorbed oligarchy, with no sign of reference to the people who put them in power. You may not have agreed with Margaret Thatcher, but in her terms of office, she did at least have guiding principles, to which she stuck. Even her ministers became corrupt, because she had similar power to that which Blair currently holds, but Blair is less concerned with running the country, and more with his personal standing on the political stage. He is a control freak, and from this comes the nanny state attitude, which is misplaced from what matters, (health, education etc.) and into the limiting of personal freedom. There is an horrific erosion of our civil liberties taking place here, with the tacit consent of the chattering classes, to whom Blair and his acolytess look for their policies. This is a reactive administration, and has little concrete forward thought - they take current issues, fed to them by lobbyists and Daily Mail types, and turn them into policy and law, with very little debate or thought as to the wishes of the more general population. We should all be seriously worried - the speeding clampdown brought it home to me, that I am being demonised for driving fast, yet I am in most other respects, a model citizen, being law-abiding, coscientious, etc.
If I am a criminal in Blair's eyes, then should we also criminalise smokers? They persistently indulge in a risk-taking activity, in the face of huge amounts of government evidence of it's harmful effect. They cause a huge drain on healthcare resources, irritate the majority, who do not smoke, and have already been the target of punitive legislation as a starting point. Their activities also cause death to people around them, from passive smoking. So, given the numbers involved, compared to the numbers of casualties in speed-related accidents, wouldn't the government be better targetting them?
Don't laugh, because with the thought patterns of those who raom the corridors of power, such an attitude may yet come to pass...
If I am a criminal in Blair's eyes, then should we also criminalise smokers? They persistently indulge in a risk-taking activity, in the face of huge amounts of government evidence of it's harmful effect. They cause a huge drain on healthcare resources, irritate the majority, who do not smoke, and have already been the target of punitive legislation as a starting point. Their activities also cause death to people around them, from passive smoking. So, given the numbers involved, compared to the numbers of casualties in speed-related accidents, wouldn't the government be better targetting them?
Don't laugh, because with the thought patterns of those who raom the corridors of power, such an attitude may yet come to pass...
very interesting, relevant to Petrolheads, now you have explained it... but unfortunately, through no fault of any of you contributors - way too heavy !! At risk of souning naieve, can't we get back to burning petrol and making tyres smoke??! 
yeah I know that burying my head in the sand will not make the problems go away, but it's just so depressing to think about our rights being erroded like this. I still don't see how Joe Public can change what the government do. 
yeah I know that burying my head in the sand will not make the problems go away, but it's just so depressing to think about our rights being erroded like this. I still don't see how Joe Public can change what the government do. quote:
...
Personally I think it's high time we moved away from trusting MPs to make all of our decisions and moved towards a system where we all get to vote on publicly emotive issues like this.
...
I could not disagree LESS.
Imagine what it would be like if people were actually allowed to vote and have it count on 'publicly emotive issues'. If you believe in the principle that public decisions should be made on a rational rather then emotional/gut reaction basis then it would be absolutely the worst way of going about it.
Don't get me wrong. I know that the present system is in no way perfect, and that there are still plenty of decisions that aren't made rationally. But at least there is a national forum -- Parliament -- for debating the issues, where there is an opportunity for all the points for and against can be aired, and a decision only arrived at once all this has happened.
Do you really think that this kind of process would stand even a snowball's chance in hell of happening if the newspapers were allowed to dictate the terms of debate, which is what would happen if the population got to vote on everything directly?
This ignores of course the not-so-small matter of the low numbers of people who actually vote even when they only have to do it once very four years. Imagine what would happen if they had to do it once a week or once a month! Barely 1% of the population would vote. Democracy? Not.
Nope, I'm sure there's a better way of making national decisions than what we have right now -- nothing's perfect -- but public voting on matters of concern would elicit nothing but gut reactions, not rational decisons made on the basis of the facts of the matter.
Sounds to me like a recipe for returning to the Dark Ages.
quote:
Im glad a few other people share my disquiet about the activities of this government. They are drunk with power, and as Henry Kissinger said, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". this pressent administration is a self-absorbed oligarchy, with no sign of reference to the people who put them in power. You may not have agreed with Margaret Thatcher, but in her terms of office, she did at least have guiding principles, to which she stuck. Even her ministers became corrupt, because she had similar power to that which Blair currently holds, but Blair is less concerned with running the country, and more with his personal standing on the political stage. He is a control freak, and from this comes the nanny state attitude, which is misplaced from what matters, (health, education etc.) and into the limiting of personal freedom. There is an horrific erosion of our civil liberties taking place here, with the tacit consent of the chattering classes, to whom Blair and his acolytess look for their policies. This is a reactive administration, and has little concrete forward thought - they take current issues, fed to them by lobbyists and Daily Mail types, and turn them into policy and law, with very little debate or thought as to the wishes of the more general population. We should all be seriously worried - the speeding clampdown brought it home to me, that I am being demonised for driving fast, yet I am in most other respects, a model citizen, being law-abiding, coscientious, etc.
If I am a criminal in Blair's eyes, then should we also criminalise smokers? They persistently indulge in a risk-taking activity, in the face of huge amounts of government evidence of it's harmful effect. They cause a huge drain on healthcare resources, irritate the majority, who do not smoke, and have already been the target of punitive legislation as a starting point. Their activities also cause death to people around them, from passive smoking. So, given the numbers involved, compared to the numbers of casualties in speed-related accidents, wouldn't the government be better targetting them?
Don't laugh, because with the thought patterns of those who raom the corridors of power, such an attitude may yet come to pass...
Sorry nubbin but I can only conclude that you don't remember Thantcher very well. Nothing Blair is doing is something that Tatch didn't start. Eg presidential style of leadership, abolition of cabinet government, isolation from the back benches, political advisors on No.10, politicisation of the civil service -- all started under Tatch.
Whether or not you agree with Blair, he is merely continuing what she started. As a nation, we seem to be firmly committed to this style of government now, might as well get used to it. I can't imagine that subsequent governments will reverse it.
What we don't have is a written constitution that crystallises the checks and balances that need to be in place. That, in my view, is the problem, not Blair.
quote:
Sorry nubbin but I can only conclude that you don't remember Thantcher very well. Nothing Blair is doing is something that Tatch didn't start. Eg presidential style of leadership, abolition of cabinet government, isolation from the back benches, political advisors on No.10, politicisation of the civil service -- all started under Tatch.
Whether or not you agree with Blair, he is merely continuing what she started. As a nation, we seem to be firmly committed to this style of government now, might as well get used to it. I can't imagine that subsequent governments will reverse it.
What we don't have is a written constitution that crystallises the checks and balances that need to be in place. That, in my view, is the problem, not Blair.
Oh Manek I can't believe you said that!
Thatcher had a couple of advisors in her day, Blair has 30! Thatcher was scrupulous in observing the traditions of BBC impartiality - even when they largely attacked her, Blair has his man in charge overall , his man in charge of news policy, even the Chief political correspondant is a Blair man. As for sidelining Cabinet or Parliament I am sorry but you are talking out of your arse! I seem to remember that the cabinet of here day was far more vibrant and known by the public and also that Thatcher did PMQs TWICE a week - and what does Blair do? Staffs his cabinet with grey people we hardly know (so he can take credit for things when they go well and palm them off when it goes badly, and as for PMQs we see him once if we're lucky (assuming he is not off saving the world somewhere) and then he either lies his face off or abuses anyone who asks a difficult question.
There was much that Thatcher did that she should be excoriated for, but no one ever said she personally was a liar and a cheat, given to cronysim, the politicisation of the civil service or less than respectful of our rights and traditions - all things we can accuse Blair of!
Andy 400se
quote:
Whether or not you agree with Blair, he is merely continuing what she started.
What we don't have is a written constitution that crystallises the checks and balances that need to be in place.
My point was that Mrs. Thatcher stood up for the principles she believed in, and ran her terms in office in that way. Whether presidential or not, she actually relied heavily on her cabinet advisors to confirm her beliefs - this may have led to some glaring political errors, but it tamed the unions, kick-started Britain as a viable post-industrial society, and laid the foundation for the current economic success we all enjoy. Large parliamentary majorities are not good, and it depends on the character of the incumbent how that power is used. This current government has no moral or political base - it has a shifting, fluid outlook, based more on the need to be popular, than what is best for this country. That makes them untrustworthy, because you never know where you stand, nor who will be the next target for their sound-bite outrage and media manipulation. At least with Thatcher, you knew your enemy, as it were.
I agree with you entirely on the last point, though.
quote:
quote:
Whether or not you agree with Blair, he is merely continuing what she started.
What we don't have is a written constitution that crystallises the checks and balances that need to be in place.
My point was that Mrs. Thatcher stood up for the principles she believed in, and ran her terms in office in that way. Whether presidential or not, she actually relied heavily on her cabinet advisors to confirm her beliefs - this may have led to some glaring political errors, but it tamed the unions, kick-started Britain as a viable post-industrial society, and laid the foundation for the current economic success we all enjoy. Large parliamentary majorities are not good, and it depends on the character of the incumbent how that power is used. This current government has no moral or political base - it has a shifting, fluid outlook, based more on the need to be popular, than what is best for this country. That makes them untrustworthy, because you never know where you stand, nor who will be the next target for their sound-bite outrage and media manipulation. At least with Thatcher, you knew your enemy, as it were.
I agree with you entirely on the last point, though.
I'd agree that large parliamentary majorities aren't good -- Thatch won a 144 majority in 1983. She also manipulated the media, put her placemen in positions of power (in fact most leaders have done this with the exception of an atypical, bi-partisan approach that applied between 1945 and 1970) and, well, I didn't agree with much of what she did but I really don't want to start a sterile 'mine's better than yours' debate.
I would agree too that having a party with principles in power is probably preferable to the current managerial approach. That said, in the 1950s, there were few ideological differences between the Labour opposition and the Tories who held sway throughout the decade. Both took a similar sort of managerial approach to government that Blair does -- which doesn't of course make his approach the right one.
How they actually went about implementing that approach was of course massively different to the way that Blair runs his government. Which is what I hope we were arguing about -- most enjoyably I have to say!
>> Edited by manek on Monday 4th March 19:54
I must stop coming here. Was just about to go home, popped in and now my blood's boiling again.
Just a thought - will a ban on hunting with animals outlaw the following?
The "green" practise of using ladybirds to control aphids.
The use of hawks to control birds on airfields.
Keeping cats on farms to control rats.
Using dogs to hunt vermin in sewers.
Just wondered what the small print says.
Just a thought - will a ban on hunting with animals outlaw the following?
The "green" practise of using ladybirds to control aphids.
The use of hawks to control birds on airfields.
Keeping cats on farms to control rats.
Using dogs to hunt vermin in sewers.
Just wondered what the small print says.
I am currently engaged in an argument with one of Whithall's departments that will affect my life significantly, because of a fatuous law change. I cannot get them to understand that the previous law, whilst cumbersome and unpopular, actually worked, and their Blairite simplification has resulted in an unjust, unfair and biased law, which actually does exactly the opposite of what the change was meant to do. I have a letter from a civil servant, spouting thinly disguised dogma, which flies in the face of the arguments I clearly set out to show what their stupid law will do to me. I am told that my situation is "actually very rare", and so in effect, I don't count because I don't fit into their patterns. The law itself is based on a view of our society that derives directly from a cynical, jaundiced, middle-class view of the reality of life outside Westminster and the Shires of Olde Englande. It is a terrible situation to be in, and I fear for my future as a result, because I will inevitably fall foul of this law, and have little or no redress.
That is the truth of this democracy. We only count at voting time, and for the rest of the time, you can kiss your rights and civil liberties goodbye!!
That is the truth of this democracy. We only count at voting time, and for the rest of the time, you can kiss your rights and civil liberties goodbye!!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff