Why did the SNP vote on english hunting laws?

Original post by zippity.doodah

a fair democracy is more important than a fox hunting law.

'Fair' is an uncertain, subjective term.
I wouldn't say it's 'fair' that the conservatives with 24% of the eligible vote have ful control, I wouldn't say it's fair that UKIP with 4 million votes gets 1 seat.

But those things happened.
I'd certainly say it's fair that the fox-hunting ban should not be relaxed.

Reply 22

zippity.doodah

OP

Original post by Bornblue

'Fair' is an uncertain, subjective term.

so is the unfairness of fox hunting, technically, with this in mind...

I wouldn't say it's 'fair' that the conservatives with 24% of the eligible vote have ful control, I wouldn't say it's fair that UKIP with 4 million votes gets 1 seat.

24%? where is *that* number coming from? they got 36% and yes that is a minority and I support proportional representation greatly, but under our system, they have a constitutional right to rule based on seats - I'd rather have a system that actually makes sense than MPs not even following their manifestos in favour of democratic consensus, because that makes each individual MP in theory pointless, because it wouldn't matter who you vote for, because the democratic consensus will never change for them. I am a huge support in (direct) democracy, and I believe in referenda (I think *this* issue should be subjected to one, for example) but I am not going to tell you that I think that it is fair and right for scottish MPs to vote on english laws because that's not fair, and the only defence of this concerning democracy at least goes against regional (english) political/constitutional self-determination (because parliament, for all its flaws, isthe only institutions that can claim to do this, while scottish national party MPs, cannot possible be representations of the english will as a matter of their very nature - they aren't voted for by the english and their consideration for the english here is entirely insincere. they don't like england. they wanted to break away from england.

and by the way, if 24% is based on how only 65?% voted, and only 36% of those that voted voted for the tories, what are you suggesting? that a democracy can never be legitimate under everybody is *forced* to vote? or at least is begged and bribed to vote if not via force? that's not something I can possibly agree with you on - people shouldn't be forced to vote - the flaws of that idea far outweigh the benefits. also, if UKIP got 12%, and the tories got 36%, then at least we can speculate that the right wing in politics beat the left wing, so even if UKIP had seats, this would probably still be happening right now regarding fox hunting.

But those things happened.
I'd certainly say it's fair that the fox-hunting ban should not be relaxed.

me too, but I believe in a fair democracy before this ideal. I'm not going to allow people to cause a good law via anti-democratic practices (as a matter of the constitutional arrangements). procedural fairness (with the current institutions at least) is more important than getting what I want/prefer regarding this law.

Reply 23

Original post by zippity.doodah

24%? where is *that* number coming from? they got 36% and yes that is a minority and I support proportional representation greatly, but under our system, they have a constitutional right to rule based on seats - I'd rather have a system that actually makes sense than MPs not even following their manifestos in favour of democratic consensus, because that makes each individual MP in theory pointless, because it wouldn't matter who you vote for, because the democratic consensus will never change for them. I am a huge support in (direct) democracy, and I believe in referenda (I think *this* issue should be subjected to one, for example) but I am not going to tell you that I think that it is fair and right for scottish MPs to vote on english laws because that's not fair, and the only defence of this concerning democracy at least goes against regional (english) political/constitutional self-determination (because parliament, for all its flaws, isthe only institutions that can claim to do this, while scottish national party MPs, cannot possible be representations of the english will as a matter of their very nature - they aren't voted for by the english and their consideration for the english here is entirely insincere. they don't like england. they wanted to break away from england.

and by the way, if 24% is based on how only 65?% voted, and only 36% of those that voted voted for the tories, what are you suggesting? that a democracy can never be legitimate under everybody is *forced* to vote? or at least is begged and bribed to vote if not via force? that's not something I can possibly agree with you on - people shouldn't be forced to vote - the flaws of that idea far outweigh the benefits. also, if UKIP got 12%, and the tories got 36%, then at least we can speculate that the right wing in politics beat the left wing, so even if UKIP had seats, this would probably still be happening right now regarding fox hunting.

me too, but I believe in a fair democracy before this ideal. I'm not going to allow people to cause a good law via anti-democratic practices (as a matter of the constitutional arrangements). procedural fairness (with the current institutions at least) is more important than getting what I want/prefer regarding this law.

36% of 65% turnout is 24 ish percent of the electorate.
Either way, with way less than 50% of the vote they get to make all the rules- that's not fair. Far less fair then not repealing fox hunting. The whole thing is undemocratic so why single out just one bit?

You didn't want it to be repealed, it hasn't been. Be happy about that and stop looking to complain when you got what you wanted.

Reply 24

Original post by democracyforum

has nothing to do with foxes

conservatives are just trying to win over english voters by proving a point

but no one in england cares that scotland votes on english matters, why do the Conservatives think they do ?

you couldnt be more wrong

Reply 25

Original post by Bornblue

Yeah not like two right wing leaders (Blair and Bush) stuck their fingers in Iraq's business is it?

That wasn't Iraq's business because it directly threatened the UK.

Nevertheless, Blair and Bush are about as right-wing in terms of British politics as you. Not at all.

Reply 26

zippity.doodah

OP

Original post by Bornblue

36% of 65% turnout is 24 ish percent of the electorate.
Either way, with way less than 50% of the vote they get to make all the rules- that's not fair. Far less fair then not repealing fox hunting. The whole thing is undemocratic so why single out just one bit?

so what you're basically trying to tell me is that a democracy without basically full turn out is never legitimate? :| surely you're not actually implying this. this sounds as if *nothing* will ever be legitimate if the standard of fairness to you involves forcing people who don't know about politics enough to vote (even though they have the right to) are to be coerced into voting! how is it even legitimate to force ill-informed people (evidently by their abstinence) to vote in a free and fair democracy? voting is a privilege, not a necessity - what if some people don't want change? surely its their right and privilege to abstain if they don't care about the results?

You didn't want it to be repealed, it hasn't been. Be happy about that and stop looking to complain when you got what you wanted.

I am against procedural unfairness *far* more than fox hunting. I could give you a 3 page essay about why fox hutning is wrong, but I could give you an entire dissertation about why authoritarianism is worse. I am far more in favour of an imperfect democracy at least following certain standards of inner fairness. if england voted to abolish the northern irish NHS, would you *really* be saying things like this? NI only constitutes like a million or so people after all, an extreme minority, compared to a hypothetical yet abusive majority.

Reply 27

Original post by Bornblue

Ah boohoo, those horrible leftists won't let us kill foxes.

Well you could argue that "foxes have rights" which would be pretty subjective and illogical. I do not agree with fox hunting but I won't pay attention nor care if it is legal.

Nevertheless, my comment is undeniable and still stands. Fox hunting is an example.

Reply 28

Original post by SotonianOne

That wasn't Iraq's business because it directly threatened the UK.

Nevertheless, Blair and Bush are about as right-wing in terms of British politics as you. Not at all.

They had no means to attack the UK.
And attacking Iraq isn't their business?
Blair and Bush no more right wing then me?

Short post, and you made 3 utterly absurd, illogical statements.
Well done.

Reply 29

Original post by Bornblue

They had no means to attack the UK.

yes, we know that now, we didn't know that then.

every national security should be thoroughly investigated, and if it can't it should be acted upon immediately. iraq is an example. iran was, until today, a very close example.

Original post by Bornblue

And attacking Iraq isn't their business?

It was more of our business.

Original post by Bornblue

Blair and Bush no more right wing then me?

You said Blair and Brown. In which case yes.

I view the political compass to the left of Thatcher as just a wall. Everyone can either be to the right of Thatcher or stuck on the wall of the far-left. With Marxists just outside the wall because they're weird and that.

Original post by Bornblue

Short post, and you made 3 utterly absurd, illogical statements.
Well done.

Intelligent statements.

Reply 30

Original post by SotonianOne

yes, we know that now, we didn't know that then.

every national security should be thoroughly investigated, and if it can't it should be acted upon immediately. iraq is an example. iran was, until today, a very close example.

It was more of our business.

You said Blair and Brown. In which case yes.

I view the political compass to the left of Thatcher as just a wall. Everyone can either be to the right of Thatcher or stuck on the wall of the far-left. With Marxists just outside the wall because they're weird and that.

Intelligent statements.

We did know that at the time... The dossier... No evidence of womd
I said Blair and bush. Re read the statements. There's your second mistake.

Well your own ignorance and stupidity in judging everyone left as thatcher as the same is utterly absurd and wrong. Mistake 2
Blair was very Thatcherite. Blair privatised things thatcher could never dream of.

I don't care if you regard them as a wall, that doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.

Reply 31

Original post by Bornblue

Blair was very Thatcherite.

What is Thatcherism to you?

Privatisation?

Wow, Attlee and his privatisation of London Dockyards are sooo typical of a Thatcherite. That guy is such an anti-socialist pheg.

Reply 32

Original post by SotonianOne

What is Thatcherism to you?

Privatisation?

Wow, Attlee and his privatisation of London Dockyards are sooo typical of a Thatcherite. That guy is such an anti-socialist pheg.

Ah I see you didn't apologise for accusing me of saying brown when I didn't ... Go on admit you were wrong on that one.

Allowing free market economics with minimal state intervention as he did. He also kept taxation low as well as carving up the nhs.

Reply 33

Original post by Bornblue

Ah I see you didn't apologise for accusing me of saying brown when I didn't ... Go on admit you were wrong on that one.

I never said I was correct? I noticed my mistake.

Original post by Bornblue

Allowing free market economics

So you are in favour of a planned economy with price controls? Wow, you are worse than I thought.

Original post by Bornblue

with minimal state intervention as he did.

> Doubling NHS spending
> Enterprise Act made mergers harder
> Introduced prison sentences for forming cartels
> Banned restricting supply when firms are capable of output
> Banned information sharing between corporations in the same industry
> Gave Office of Fair Trading regulatory powers to punish corporations which set prices "too high"
> Fined Eton and Harrow for 3 million each because of "too high pricing"
> Regulated what private radio and tv stations could do and show including ban on political scrutiny
> Set up competition commission with powers to cut up companies
> Set up Ofwat to regulate water prices
> Set up Ofrail to regulate rail competition
> Set up Ofcom to regulate content and competition
> Set up Ofgem to regulate energy prices
> Set up Postcomm to regulate postal and parcel services, competition and prices

> "minimal state intervention"

Original post by Bornblue

He also kept taxation low

"low"

Original post by Bornblue

as well as carving up the nhs.

which is why he doubled nhs spending

Reply 34

jammy4041

18

Because, the SNP has been considering bolstering its laws on Fox hunting, in Scotland, and a vote in favour of watering down fox hunting would have torpedoed any chance of the SNP doing so. Now that the fox hunting stuff has failed in Westminster, I would expect a tougher law in Scotland imminently.

It hasn't been poilitically feasible for them to do it until now, since they had 4 years as a minority government, and needed to build support for the Yes campaign, and such a vote could have torpedoed their surpport.

Reply 35

StretfordEnd

They didn't vote. They intimated that they might and Cameron bought the empty threat and meekly backed down.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by zippity.doodah

english parties at the very least have the principle of not becoming involved in matters devolved to the regions - the SNP don't even respect the rule that if you have a parliament in your region, you should vote on matters which you are legally entitled to do in that one, not in the national one where england has its representation there solely. SNP are being anti-democratic regarding politics. whatever smidge of respect I had for them is obliterated now if they are trying to tell my country what to do from another country entirely.

What are these mythical English parties? There's only Natalie Bennet who is a green MP who is in a truly English party.

Reply 37

SH0405

Original post by BloodandThunder

At least the U turn has further shown Cameron as the useless bastard he is

Is that the same useless bastard that, along with the rest of his party, has created over 2 million new jobs and has lead the country with the fastest growing economy in the G7, as well as actually making the correct decisions in current government to avoid putting burden on future ones? (The absence of) that last situation seems....familiar, by the way. I wonder why.

Reply 38

zippity.doodah

OP