"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...
prune

I don't know whether or not the polls were flawed, only a
referendum
would
settle that.

That would be your problem..............
I, in turn, don't know how one would skew a poll to show quite as
convincing majority in favour of a ban without making it glaringly
obvious that one has skewed the results. That I find hard to
swallow,
since the polls were conducted by the usual, respected polling
organisations, which would not wish to have their reputations
destroyed.


First, I don't regard having an open mind on the accuracy of opinion
polls
as a problem. Nor do I believe that giving all concerned in a
contentious
and potentially inflammatory single issue matter an opportunity to
vote on
it is a problem.

The matter is inflammarory only because the losers are not prepared to
accept that they are in a minority of 1 to 2 in all the regions where
polls were conducted..

That's not the only reason the matter is inflammatory, but their belief that
popular opinion within their regions supports them seems an important
factor. Hence my belief that the best way to settle that question would be
to hold referenda in those regions.

Giving them a lesson or two in civics might
not come amiss

Giving them a chance to vote on it wouldn't, either.


The reality of the situation, in my view, is that, regardless of
opinion
poll indications, we have the real problem of a considerable body of
people
seeming to believe that they have been 'railroaded' into a ban by
MPs whose
personal views on the matter do not reflect the wishes of the
communities
concerned.

But they do. They do. All the polls indicate that that the pro-hunt
fraternity
is in a minority of 1 to 2.
Please avccept this fact once and for all so as to make it unnecessary
for me to have to say it yet again.

You may say it as often as you like, it doesn't alter the fact that the
hunting fraternity does not accept it as fact, which is why IMO it would
have been preferable to settle that issue by referendum.


They resent the situation, and unpleasantness is occurring and
may be expected to continue and to fester unless resolved.

Yes. I am under no illusions about the lack of understanding of the
situation by the more barbaric sections of the population.

The relatively simple expedient of organising referenda in the
hunting
regions would have settled the issue beyond any doubt at all,

Why don't you suggest we go all the way and conduct a referendum, only
within the hunting organisations?

Because that would not provide a true indication of the wishes of the
electorate in the locations where hunting is carried out, obviously.


The matter has already been settled beyond all doubt by the usual
process of democracy in this country.

Hardly usual.


and, hopefully
would have lead to wider acceptance of the results,

I have less faith than you in the good nature of barbarians.

That's fair enough - but if you were to gove them a chance, you would be
able to test whether or not your suspicions were justified.


and a swifter return to
normality.

I suggest it is common sense, not wishful thinking, to learn from
events and
to try to think of a better way.

The present way in which democracy is exercised in this country is as
good a way as you will find anywhere.


That doesn't mean it is perfect, or incapable of improvement, which,
presumably, is why we have been experimenting with or considering all postal
ballots, devolution, proportional representation, referenda, etc.