On 24/11/04 12:29, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

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.

I must say that this is not my (or others) interpretation of his remarks.
As he is a Labour MP closely involved in this issue, I think how his
comments are interpreted is very important. Obviously, we see them in
different ways.


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.

No, no. I has not been stated as such, if only because that isn't how the
wording works, though Labour MPs have said they consider hunting to be
'cruel'. But I do think it was in the background and I think it is
impossible to pretend that many anti-hunt supporters have made a great many
class-ridden remarks.

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?

The point surely is that he has introduced 'class' into the situation and
officially, that is not supposed to have anything to do with it. He has
done it cleverly, I grant, but nonetheless he has done it. In my view he
uses weasel words.


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 read it as being so because of the way in which it forced country dwellers
into defending their position. You could - or I could - say, that whoever
'started it', class was at the bottom of it all *for the politicians*. I do
not quarrel with those who are deeply convinced of what they believe, even
if I disagree with them because just a few years ago I was anti. I DO think
there has been a cynical manipulation of the issue. Who can forget John
Prescott's comments, some years ago?
snip
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 ;-)

And that is another point although a dangerous one, I know. Why should
people living in the country be 'ruled' by those who lived in towns, simply
because our population is mainly urban? Another can of worms....
But I think this has caused terrible divisions and I'm sorry for it.

snip
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)