Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Labour getting shouted at for opposing hunting bill

  • 08-07-2010 12:07PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭


    I see Labour HQ is getting shouted at - "no excuse for animal abuse - shame on Labour!".

    Not a lot of people there (but those there are clearly fairly leather-lunged, or have mastered circular breathing), but seems fairly richly deserved to me.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    ...seems fairly richly deserved to me.

    Agreed. I think people are starting to see through Labour's vote-whoring tactics of late. Whatever about their "all things to all people" policy stance, this important issue really exposed the Party as willing to put substance on the sideline just to win a couple of votes.

    It's troubling, really, as some of the disastrous economic polices that caused this recession - for example, raising spending while lowering tax - were introduced by Fianna Fáil with the exact same goal in mind: grab votes at the expense of substance and sustainability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,325 ✭✭✭✭Dozen Wicked Words


    Well, as a foreigner who was definitely going to vote Labour next election, this is yet another bit of blatant party politics over substance that is giving me real pause for thought.

    Quotes from Labour Party who now oppose bill (taken from Green website but a quotes a quote)

    3 years ago. Eamon Gilmore, TD: "I am opposed to the blood sports of badger baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, hare coursing and stag hunting."

    Now he opposes the bill, god they really must have changed how hunting works now, is it more like a game of tag now?

    I wont be voting Green btw, not sure who I will be voting for now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Animal welfare groups & citizens have been waiting decades for these bills to drag Ireland into the 21st century and yet its just one opposition party who oppose it. Shame on them indeed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭round tower huntsman


    well done labour for showing support to the country sports community.
    you'll certainly get my vote and plenty of others too.
    ireland is famous the world over for its hounds,horses,gundogs, its excellent shooting fishing hunting coursing....lets keep it that way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    I haven't read the Bill. And I haven't been watching the news in days so apart from the very basic details and anything that's been posted here, I'm pretty unaware of the actual contents.

    However, even as one of the most socially liberal people I know (though I'm sure lots of people I know have caught up in the past few years), I recall me voting against the 1995 divorce referendum on what for me was largely a procedural (or secondary) issue - I didn't agree with the specified waiting time contained therein and I didn't agree with it being locked into the constitution either. So I'm perfectly understanding of individuals or groups rejecting a specific instance of an issue where they support the larger issue itself. I see David Norris intends to vote against the Civil Partnership Bill using the same reasoning on a different issue.

    Humour me, the boy who hasn't been watching the TV or reading the news this week: is the Labour party doing this or is there a possibility their TDs are doing this? Or are they genuinely playing silly buggers and opposing legislation merely because they see an opportunity to get a few extra rural votes?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Well, I suspect Labour's attitude will be that it is a small price to pay for power.

    Right now, FF are hurting - they probably are at their most vulnerable votes-wise since the 1920s. If Labour can persuade a chunk of FF's rural voters to switch to them, Labour stand a good chance of taking seats in rural 3 and 4 seat constituencies. Such a switch would have the twin effect of boosting Labour's numbers while seriously hurting FF - an "added bonus" I'd suspect. Many of these disaffected voters won't vote FG on (tribal) principle, so if their votes are going a'begging....

    Such is politics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sceptre wrote: »
    I haven't read the Bill. And I haven't been watching the news in days so apart from the very basic details and anything that's been posted here, I'm pretty unaware of the actual contents.

    However, even as one of the most socially liberal people I know (though I'm sure lots of people I know have caught up in the past few years), I recall me voting against the 1995 divorce referendum on what for me was largely a procedural (or secondary) issue - I didn't agree with the specified waiting time contained therein and I didn't agree with it being locked into the constitution either. So I'm perfectly understanding of individuals or groups rejecting a specific instance of an issue where they support the larger issue itself. I see David Norris intends to vote against the Civil Partnership Bill using the same reasoning on a different issue.

    Humour me, the boy who hasn't been watching the TV or reading the news this week: is the Labour party doing this or is there a possibility their TDs are doing this? Or are they genuinely playing silly buggers and opposing legislation merely because they see an opportunity to get a few extra rural votes?

    As far as I've been able to see so far, it's been opposition simply for the sake of opposition - possibly not even about votes, because Labour in the cities appeals to the kind of people who would be irritated by this, myself included.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as I've been able to see so far, it's been opposition simply for the sake of opposition...
    This is my impression also. I think they saw a slim opportunity to defeat a government bill, and voted against their conscience in an attempt to do so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This is my impression also. I think they saw a slim opportunity to defeat a government bill, and voted against their conscience in an attempt to do so.

    Thats pretty much what oppositions everywhere do. You can only realistically get your own policies enacted by being in power.

    The anti-hunting bill seemed to be mostly a sop to the green/veggie/animal lib/sandal-wearing-lentil-eating-do-gooder types and hopefully FG or whoever get into power next will get rid of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    It's strange that the bill is often reported to have banned stag hunting when it only banned stag hunting with dogs. The majority of hunters use guns anyway and considering 30,000 deer were culled last year, they could actually do with relaxing the regulations to allow more people to hunt.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as I've been able to see so far, it's been opposition simply for the sake of opposition -

    its a two-way street

    The Governemnt has voted down bills proposed by the opposition...only to bring them in themselves in due course

    its all part of the great game we are so lucky to have!


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Thats pretty much what oppositions everywhere do. You can only realistically get your own policies enacted by being in power.
    So you think they should vote against civil partnership?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you think they should vote against civil partnership?

    if they think it is not the right legislation, then why not?

    It doesn't directly meant they are against civil partnerships per se if they vote against this particular bill

    I mean David Norris voted against it


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Riskymove wrote: »
    if they think it is not the right legislation, then why not?
    That's a different thing from opposition for the sake of opposition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a different thing from opposition for the sake of opposition.

    funny...i took from BlaasforRafa's post that he was saying that oppossitions want to reject Government versions and bring in their own (because they would do it better:)), which is slightly different than just oppossing everything for the sake of it


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Riskymove wrote: »
    funny...i took from BlaasforRafa's post that he was saying that oppossitions want to reject Government versions and bring in their own (because they would do it better:)), which is slightly different than just oppossing everything for the sake of it
    So what was their principled objection to the ban on the Ward Union hunt?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So what was their principled objection to the ban on the Ward Union hunt?

    haven't a clue....whats that got to do with it?

    I was responding to your post and what you qouted


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Agreed. I think people are starting to see through Labour's vote-whoring tactics of late. Whatever about their "all things to all people" policy stance, this important issue really exposed the Party as willing to put substance on the sideline just to win a couple of votes.

    It's troubling, really, as some of the disastrous economic polices that caused this recession - for example, raising spending while lowering tax - were introduced by Fianna Fáil with the exact same goal in mind: grab votes at the expense of substance and sustainability.

    People never saw through Bertie after ten years of this kind of carry-on.

    Gilmore is the new Bertie.

    Politics watchers can spot this stuff quickly, but people who don't only see that one party is saying what they want to hear.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    The thread title is misleading and untrue - Labour voted for the breeding bill

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Riskymove wrote: »
    funny...i took from BlaasforRafa's post that he was saying that oppossitions want to reject Government versions and bring in their own (because they would do it better:)), which is slightly different than just oppossing everything for the sake of it

    That might work if the opposition had any chance of actually bringing in a bill. Since they don't...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That might work if the opposition had any chance of actually bringing in a bill. Since they don't...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    well what was put forward earlier was the idea that there was a 'slim chance of defeating the Government'

    on that basis, taken to its conclusion, Labour could be thinking that it is in order to vote against the Government, even on things it agrees with, if the result is defeat of the Government and them getting into power

    you can always ban hunting then!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    The thread title is misleading and untrue - Labour voted for the breeding bill

    Apologies - amended accordingly.

    apologies,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭round tower huntsman


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So what was their principled objection to the ban on the Ward Union hunt?

    i heard one of em say that the bill was being rushed without any consultation with the parties involved. also that the bill or gormley for that matter had no consideration for what would happen to the local community economiclly or that it didnt consider what would happen the deer or hounds after the ban.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭round tower huntsman


    basiclly they werent altogether against a ban but that the bill itself was flawed and being rushed through by gormley.... as a sop to the antis in his party before the government falls.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Riskymove wrote: »
    well what was put forward earlier was the idea that there was a 'slim chance of defeating the Government'

    on that basis, taken to its conclusion, Labour could be thinking that it is in order to vote against the Government, even on things it agrees with, if the result is defeat of the Government and them getting into power
    In which case, there's absolutely no point whatsoever in having debates or votes in the Dáil chamber. Nobody says anything they believe in; nobody votes for what the agree with or against what they disagree with. A government is formed with a majority of TDs, and there's not a lot achieved by all the talking and pretendy voting over the following five years.

    As I've said before, our system of government is not a democracy, but a rotating dictatorship, and that fact is copper-fastened by the collusion of all parties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In which case, there's absolutely no point whatsoever in having debates or votes in the Dáil chamber

    absolutely, a complete waste of time and energy (indeed money) for the most part

    at times in my career I have had to be there and its a real eye-opener to how pointless it all is

    Nobody says anything they believe in

    most anyway...there are some notable exceptions over history
    nobody votes for what the agree with or against what they disagree with. A government is formed with a majority of TDs, and there's not a lot achieved by all the talking and pretendy voting over the following five years.

    yes thats the whip system for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 804 ✭✭✭round tower huntsman


    not all labour td's are anti hunting. one of the loudest and passionate td's against the bill and what he saw as an attack on rural sport was a labour td, pendergast(?).
    if labour want to pick up lost ff votes then they'll have to soften their official stance on hunting and coursing etc..believe me there are votes to be won, especially in counties like cork,kerry,monaghan wexford,limerick,kilkenny all big hunting and coursing counties.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Essexboy


    at the 2007 General Election, a neighbouring priest orgainsed a meeting to support rezoning farmland to benefit speculators.

    The Labour, SF, FG candidates who turned up
    • knew nothing about the situation;
    • wholeheartedly supported rezoning, under the impression that votes would be gained
    by doing so.

    Principles? they would not have known one if it jumped up and bit them on their b*ll*cks. The Labour position on stag hunting is similar.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    One Labour member, Tommy Broughan, voted for the stag hunting bill and was duly "ousted" as Labour transport spokesman. He is replaced by Brendan Howlin, of "levy is a spending cut" fame.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0708/breaking34.html


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    I just think it's pathetic when people claim that it's a "rural vs urban" debate; I detest hunting and coursing, etc, as so-called "sports".

    If you want to hunt something to kill and eat it, then at least there's a point to it....but as a "sport", it's pathetic.


Advertisement