Cameron and the countryside alliance

simonmagnus Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The soft and cuddly tories have a lust for blood and killing,we have to stop tearing ourselves apart and turn our guns on Dave the snake oil salesman.



http://chriswgale.typepad.com/chris_gale/2008/05/cameron-and-the.html



tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Cameron and the countryside alliance | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#1)

by Guy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM GMT

First up, I should state that I grew up in the countryside (in Devon) and that, while I've never hunted in my life, I'm not anti-hunt - but I wouldn't say that I'm hugely pro-hunt either; I think that the legislation was largely about class warfare and both badly conceived and implemented. I am also a member of the Conservative party - now you know where I'm coming from :)


I've not come on here to argue the pros and cons of hunting - it's just that both the LabHome post and the article itself strike me as a bit bizarre.

There are many reasons a) to be anti-hunt or b) anti-Tory (even now that we're cuddly), but this article does not express any of them.

1. Cameron was selected because he argued plausibly for a more liberal Conservative party that recognised that ideologcal purity was not going to win the next election (cf 2001 & 2005). He was selected by 2/3rds of party members, of whom approximately none were concerned about the candidates views on fox-hunting.

2. Boris has taken on Hoey as his sports adviser, not as his hunt adviser. She has some form in the field as a government minister and, while urban foxes are a constant pest, I don't think the hounds are likely to start riding through the suburbs just yet. Although maybe it could be something for the packs of feral youths... ;)

3. This is just not a priority for a future Conservative government. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country after 11 years of New-Lab government: civil liberties, the tax burden, public sector reform, the constitutional settlement etc. The only way that a Cameron goverment would take this on is if it had a large majority, which is unlikely with the way that the electoral system is currently stacked in Labour's favour (our fault, should've got better lawyers!).

4. Finally, and this gets a bit normative, so feel free to ignore it: if the legislation was repealed, it would not be due to "a fetish for cruelty". It would be repealed on the basis of pragmatism (support for rural communities/ pest control) and ideology (stopping people from doing what they want when it doesn't hurt other people is wrong). While there may well be  a few ex-hunters on the blue side of the benches, they are far from a baying mob with a thirst for blood.

Sorry to have gone on a bit, but I really think that if you start falling for this line (and the constant attacks on the Toffs) then you're conceding the argument already and we'll wipe the floor, which will make the next couple of years exceedingly boring for us and painful for you.

Cheers (and enjoy thed rest of the not-so-sunny-in-London Bank Holiday),

Guy


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#3)

by fluffymike on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:01:16 PM GMT

That the tories will bring back fox hunting is as certain as anything be in politics.

And it should be one of our biggest messages during the campaign - a picture of a fox hunt and the slogan - don't let them back in!


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#2)

by bishophill on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:16:53 PM GMT

"The soft and cuddly tories have a lust for blood and killing..."

Are you drunk, or is this really your considered opinion? 


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#4)

by Guy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:34:47 PM GMT

Seriously Mike, where have you got this from? Please post a link pointing to this, because I have not heard it mentioned since the Countryside Alliance marches. If you can, then I fully retract, but...

As per my initial post, we might repeal the law, IF we get a substantial majority; but there are so many more pressing prioroties to deal with first. Forcing the issue in a tight parliament would expend political capital that could be better spent elsewhere.

And I can promise you that focusing on fox-hunting when the electorate wants answers to somewhat bigger questions will play into our hands.


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#8)

by Tankist on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM GMT

Tories who go to "take your seat" conferences come back boasting of the help the CA is going to give them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#12)

by fluffymike on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM GMT

Guy - it's not a big theme amongst the Conservatives because
a) it's not popular in general
b) it's pretty much assumed it will happen anyway so there's no need to make any noise about it - which is why the CA are planning to help Tory marginals en masse
c) as you say - it's not considered a priority policy

However, if you talk to hunt-supporting conservatives, they are absolutely convinced the ban will be overturned. This includes most cllrs I have talked to and 1 MP.

The point is, that 2010 will be the last year that hounds born from before the ban was introduced will still be able to hunt. Even then, there will not be many of them left. Hounds are normally killed after 5-6 years of hunting as they become less effective. But it will be far easier to train new hounds if their are some old hands amongst the pack.

The hunts are totally relying on a Tory govt to overturn the ban as soon as they get in - they are currently losing a lot of money and interest from traditional supporters, and many are simply hanging on in the hope that Cameron will rescue them - another 4-5 years form 2009/10 will effectively finish a lot of them.

Under these circumstances, it is imperative that Cameron moves quickly to save them - if he doesn't it will be seen as a massive betrayal by his CA supporters.


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#5)

by Chris Gale39 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:31:37 PM GMT

The Countryside Alliance have been VERY busy since their marches. Not only do they have a Chief Exec who is now a Tory PPC with very close links to Cameron, but they have a front organisation called 'Vote OK' that was active in the 2005 election and all local elections since.

These god awful people are some of the most debased, violent and downright nasty people you can imagine.

Many people dont realise the extent to which they will go to get their killing for fun back, they will use every means and spend as much money and time as it takes. These people think its their right to torment and kill our widlife for fun.

The Tories and their allies in the press may go about Gordon Brown but in contrast to hunter Cameron he doesnt like to spend his weekends chasing wild animals to exhaustion and disembowelling them with a pack of dogs for fun.

This from August 2007 at the Peterborough Festival of Hunting.....
 
David Maclean,  (Tory) MP for Penrith and the Border, addresses the crowd; 'This law will be toughened up if Labour wins another election. It is essential that we get political and help Vote OK to get the pro-hunting MPs into parliament.'
 
quote below from Tory Peer Lord Mancroft (Vice Chair of the Countryside Alliance)

"We shall put together the necessary resources, both financial and otherwise , to achieve all of this, and we shall continue to do this until this Government falls (which may not be so far away). The last man standing wins: and we are not planning to sit down for a long while yet."

 


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#6)

by jkitleft on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:44 PM GMT

I'm not sure how you crack down on the fox hunts. I would not take part in them myself. I find them utterly abhorrent, and I think it is indicative of a nasty mob mentality that overtakes such events. But how do you enforce it? A great deal of time has been spent on this debate. Perhaps the anti-hunting side has some honourable explenations. But ultimately, the law is not a deterrent.


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#7)

by Guy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM GMT

Chris, you've pointed to Conservatives who've said that they want the law to be over-turned, but nothing pointing to what they would do in government.

And when was the last time that Cameron "chased a wild animal to exhaustion and disembowelled it with a pack of dogs for fun"? He represents a rural constituency and, guess what, he might just be representing his constituents' views (assuming he is pro-hunting; as I've mentioned, it really isn't a big concern).

I appreciate that you won't compromise on what you see as cruelty, but you need to sell your point of view better. Hysteria never comes across well.

Guy


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#9)

by Chris Gale39 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:49:41 AM GMT

guy, you and your tory friends will not distract me or anyone else, you know full well what the Cameron agenda is,  and you have come on here to try and distract people from it and obscure it.

Well it won't work. I have better things to do than waste time on you (which you woiuld of course love me to do)

The gloves are off.

On the subject of the law and it not being a detterent. It does need better enforcement and thats being worked on at the moment but if it was not a threat to their vile 'sport' the hunters would not be spending vast amounts of money and time trying to overturn it.

They know that if Labour is elected again they are finished. 

Onwards and updwards I say, time to take on Cameron. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#10)

by Guy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:31:40 AM GMT

Sorry Chris, but there really isn't any big conspiracy here. As I have recognised, we 'might' change the law if we get into power after the next election, but I'll be hugely dismayed if it was in the first Queen's Speech.

My understanding is that hunts are pretty much able to continue to operate anyway, so why expend energy on it.

And you may find it is a better strategy to try and ally yourself with elements in the party who are anti-hunt themselves, as there is no reason for this to be a party politicl issue; this is about the practical effect of the ban, and differing conceptions of human and animal rights (where I concur that a Conservative would in general be more likely to come down on the 'human' side of the argument).

Anyway, good luck with your cause, as I can see that it is clearly important to you (I am similarly enthused by gross infringements on our liberty such as ID Cards and 42 day detention).

Guy


Re: Cameron and the countryside alliance (#11)

by Chris Gale39 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:56:17 AM GMT

"My understanding is that hunts are pretty much able to continue to operate anyway, so why expend energy on it."

 

if they were then they would not be pulling out all the stops to get the law repealed. They fear it, make no mistake about it. 


[ Parent ]

Cameron and the countryside alliance | 12 comments (12 topical)