"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:31:09 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:07:00 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

prune

It was in the New Labour election manifesto.

What was?

It.

I know we're both using English words, but only one of us is using the
English language... Care to tell me what the hell you're on about?

The subject which was polled and about which some think there should
be a referendum.

If you mean hunting with hounds, the Manifesto commitment was to allow
parliament to reach a decision, I think. That decision could have been
anything from status quo to a total ban, including a licensing option linked
to a regional referendum to allow the regional population to take the
decision, or devolution of the decision to local authorities, much like the
Scots parliament took the decision for its part of the UK. So the manifesto
did not rule out a referendum on the matter.

I do believe putting the matter to a popular vote would have been wise. Not
only would it have given an accurate indication of public opinion,
individuals might have been more willing to accept the 'verdict' if it could
honestly have been said to be the people's decision rather than the result
of a free vote amongst a few hundred other individuals.

And we might not be quite so apathetic about politics in general if we were
actually allowed to vote on some issues, rather than merely given a limited
choice every now and again between which of very similar parties takes a
turn at muddling through for the next few years.

I doubt whether anyone who voted for a New Labour candidate at the last
election supported every single policy in the party's manifesto, let alone
every single personal opinion of the candidate, and to pretend that is so on
an issue which, although relatively trivial seems to be splitting the
nation, when a means of determining the public's wishes is easily available,
strikes me as plain daft.