In article , Sacha
writes
On 24/11/04 8:31, in article , "Kay"
wrote:


Not to me. For the second time you have talked about the Labour Party
admitting that it is class war, and I don't understand where you have
got this from. Even if you interpret Peter Bradley's article that way
(and I think you are wrong to do so), that is still the views of a
single MP, and not, as Mike has said, a statement of Labour policy.

From The Shropshire Star
"Labour MP Peter Bradley has admitted that class warfare lay at the heart of
the battle over the future of fox hunting, which was finally outlawed by
Parliament last week. "

But what the Shropshire Star are not saying (in the bit you have quoted)
is that what Peter Bradley said was that it was class warfare that was
behind the opposition to the ban.

He did not say that class warfare was behind the ban itself.

His article did not set out to address the causes of the ban.

He goes on to say, effectively, that it was the 'last hurrah' of the toffs
fighting the proles because the toffs own all the land etc.

Yes - that is about the reaction to the ban.

That is not saying 'the proles are fighting for a ban because the toffs
own all the land'

He is either
trotting out a party belief or he is very silly indeed to express his
personal views in this way.

Perhaps, but there is no indication that this is anything other than his
personal expression of views. To say this is Labour party policy, you
would have to draw on a ministerial statement.

He is not the only MP (of any persuasion) to use the newspapers to put
forward personal views. Do we assume that everything Boris Johnstone
says is Conservative party policy? Or that Kilroy-Silk was always
speaking for UKIP?


I know several people who hunt in Devon and I can only think of one who is
titled. Most are 'ordinary' members of the population, farmers, postmen,
supermarket workers etc. The idea that this is a 'class war' was not
raised by any one of those people or by a land owner but by a Member of
Parliament.

I am not arguing, and haven't argued, for or against its being a class
war. What I am arguing against is using a hypothesis for the causes of
the *opposition* to a hunting ban as evidence that the proposal for the
hunting ban was based on class war. There may be lots of evidence that
the hunting ban was indeed the result of a class war, but Peter
Bradley's article is not it.

I don't hunt, don't want to, never have, couldn't. But I think there is
rank dishonesty at the heart of this.

Isn't their rank dishonesty at the heart of most policy, Labour and
Conservative alike? Most issues are not clear cut, but you don't get a
law passed by saying 'it's hard to see what to do but on balance it's
probably better to go this way rather than that'.

I think the latter would be preferable, if unlikely. But what disturbs me
about the hunting bill is that while we live in a democracy, the majority of
the population of this country is urban. The majority of the people who
hunt and know about control of the fox as a pest, live in the country. I
wouldn't dream of imposing my will about some urban issue on the people of
e.g. Liverpool and I'm not convinced that it's right for urban dwellers to
impose their will on countrymen.

As you say, we live in a democracy. There are laws passed which I oppose
with what I consider to be good reasons. But I have to accept that part
and parcel of being in a democracy is that one has to accept what may
appear to be misguided changes in legislation if that is what is decreed
by the party that the electorate has put in power.

We are all in *some* minority group ;-)

I am concerned about this too because I believe most genuinely that what
will now happen to foxes is going to be much more cruel and painful for them
than either a clean escape or a certain death.

I have no quarrels about the sincerity and compassion of your belief.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"