Labour getting shouted at for opposing hunting bill

Scofflaw

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

oscarBravo

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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

The_Minister

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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.

Annasopra

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

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

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!!

Scofflaw

Johnnymcg wrote: »

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

Apologies - amended accordingly.

apologies,
Scofflaw

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Iwasfrozen

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Labour are populist hypocrites who have shown their true colours with this bill.

Grumpypants

I supported the bill but thats not what im disappointed with. Labour went against what was best for the country because it was the best for them.

The last thing we need is more politicians that are more interested in themselves than whats the right thing.

More surprised that i was disappointed with a politician to be honest.

Shea O'Meara

Seeing as we got the green slant, here's Labour and some FF backyardigans:

Mr Costello said yesterday he remained opposed to blood sports, but would be voting with his party against the Bill because it was a bad piece of legislation.
It related to one activity in one county and was no more than a “fig leaf” for the Green Party.
“There was a total failure to consult with anybody and discuss the issues involved, including the jobs at risk.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0629/1224273556970.html

Mr O'Donovan and some other Fianna Fáil backbenchers object to some of the provisions in the Bill which is due before the Dáil next week; he refused to back amendments tabled by Mr Gormley in the Seanad because he felt they were too vague.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0624/hunting.html

Wide Road

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Liam, did we ever find out why Alan Shatter voted against the bill? He was very quiet on the matter.

Liam Byrne

Wide Road wrote: »

Liam, did we ever find out why Alan Shatter voted against the bill? He was very quiet on the matter.

Why are you asking me ? What would I know about Alan Shatter and his motivation ?

aDeener

labour are some joke. did they not realise in their pathetic attempt to gain rural votes (which would only ever be minimal, they would need dramatic changes in social policy to make significant gains here imo) that they would lose far more from their base which supported them as a result of such stances on bloodsports.

Liam Byrne

aDeener wrote: »

labour are some joke. did they not realise in their pathetic attempt to gain rural votes (which would only ever be minimal, they would need dramatic changes in social policy to make significant gains here imo) that they would lose far more from their base which supported them as a result of such stances on bloodsports

What dramatic changes from what aspects of social policy ?

I know I'm just-outside-suburbia (so not strictly either urban or rural) but I'd be perfectly OK with giving Labour at least a preference vote.

aDeener

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What dramatic changes from what aspects of social policy ?

I know I'm just-outside-suburbia (so not strictly either urban or rural) but I'd be perfectly OK with giving Labour at least a preference vote.

they will never get the conservative rural vote with their stance on such things like abortion no matter what they do with bloodsports imo

Liam Byrne

aDeener wrote: »

they will never get the conservative rural vote with their stance on such things like abortion no matter what they do with bloodsports imo

Ah, so you've added the word "conservative".......surely there are conservative people living in urban areas too ?

So therefore, is it not "conservative" versus "more liberal", rather than "urban" vs "rural" ?

And out of curiosity, what is FF's stance on things like abortion or old-age pensions or civil partnerships ?

Or do they just flip-flop over and back depending on what way the wind is blowing in order to maximise votes, without having any actual conviction or principles ?

aDeener

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, so you've added the word "conservative".......surely there are conservative people living in urban areas too ?

So therefore, is it not "conservative" versus "more liberal", rather than "urban" vs "rural" ?

And out of curiosity, what is FF's stance on things like abortion or old-age pensions or civil partnerships ?

Or do they just flip-flop over and back depending on what way the wind is blowing in order to maximise votes, without having any actual conviction or principles ?

i think it's safe to assume that rural ireland is more conservative than urban ireland. well i didnt think i had to write "conservative" the first time, generally rural ireland is associated with conservatism, you must not have gathered that.

why are you asking me about FF??

ANXIOUS

Wide Road wrote: »

Liam, did we ever find out why Alan Shatter voted against the bill? He was very quiet on the matter.

I think you mean me, nah I've emailed him twice and rang his office approx 10times without a call back.

Liam Byrne

aDeener wrote: »

i think it's safe to assume that rural ireland is more conservative than urban ireland. well i didnt think i had to write "conservative" the first time, generally rural ireland is associated with conservatism, you must not have gathered that.

It's probably anecdotally correct to assume that it's a bit more conservative, but it by no means has a monopoly on it, and most people who assume that it's vastly more conservative have no first-hand knowledge.

Is an 80 year old in Dublin City more conservative than an 80 year old in Kerry ?

It's simply not a "given".

aDeener wrote: »

why are you asking me about FF??

Because people seem to think that FF have a rural vote base, and I find it astonishing that u-turns and the more (supposedly) liberal views and policies that FF have, and their u-turns, don't seem to impact on that; so it's strange that you assume that similar policies or u-turns within Labour would have such a negative impact.

The Volt

As a staunch Labour supporter I have to say that the party have made a fool of themselves on this occasion. As far as I can see, there were two sides to it. Rabbitte, Quinn and Gilmore tried to use it as a parliamentary tactic to bring down the government. Then some of the rural heads opposed it including Penrose who made the most embarrassing speech imaginable.

Wide Road

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I think you mean me, nah I've emailed him twice and rang his office approx 10times without a call back.

Bad form from Alan Shatter. I thought he was different. Did you?

Laminations

Wide Road wrote: »

Bad form from Alan Shatter. I thought he was different. Did you?

cheap

Wide Road

Laminations wrote: »

cheap

No, I would never call Alan cheap. He's better than that. Isn't he?

aDeener

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's probably anecdotally correct to assume that it's a bit more conservative, but it by no means has a monopoly on it, and most people who assume that it's vastly more conservative have no first-hand knowledge.

Is an 80 year old in Dublin City more conservative than an 80 year old in Kerry ?

It's simply not a "given".



Because people seem to think that FF have a rural vote base, and I find it astonishing that u-turns and the more (supposedly) liberal views and policies that FF have, and their u-turns, don't seem to impact on that; so it's strange that you assume that similar policies or u-turns within Labour would have such a negative impact.

ok so, in your opinion which do you perceive to be more conservative, urban or rural ireland?


FF have been popular in rural areas (dont know how you could dispute this), many people - and you have brought this up before - vote FF and indeed FG due to the way the family have always voted. FF are perceived and traditionally have been in line to a fair extent with the catholic church. have you ever heard of the phrase "once an early riser, always an early riser?"
you get a name for something it generally sticks

aDeener

Wide Road wrote: »

No, I would never call Alan cheap

thats for sure, he certainly is not cheap, if you want to save a few euro id get a consultation with someone other than gallaghershatter

Liam Byrne

aDeener wrote: »

ok so, in your opinion which do you perceive to be more conservative, urban or rural ireland?

I've already answered this - in the post that you quoted.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's probably anecdotally correct to assume that it's a bit more conservative, but it by no means has a monopoly on it

aDeener

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already answered this - in the post that you quoted.

so you agree then, what was the point in all these posts...