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

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.

erm.... I think you might have missed out a 'not' in there ;-)

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's not the point in this bit - we were talking about whether a
junior MP writing in a newspaper is to be assumed to be stating the
policy of his party. If that is the assumption to be made, then all
three parties have an awful lot of conflicting policies ;-)

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 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.

What forced country dwellers into defending their position? The article?
Are you equating country dwellers with landowners? Shouldn't anyone who
expresses their opinion in a way which tries to influence others expect
to defend their position?

You could - or I could - say, that whoever
'started it', class was at the bottom of it all *for the politicians*.

I'm not arguing either for or against that. My argument all along has
been that Peter bradley's article is not about who started it, in the
sense of who started the anti-hunting bill, it was about the response to
it. And I know that is not how you read the article. I guess I should
stop banging on about it because I will not convince you that your
interpretation is reading into the article things that are not there.


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....

Because it's a democracy ;-)

As I said, we are all in a minority. Why should I in the north be
'ruled' by those of you living in the south simply because there are
more of you?


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"