Norfolk and the General Election

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on the Norfolk vote

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

On 19/02/2024 at 13:52, horsefly said:

That's my constituency too. Had the lazy lump fatty Bacon remained as candidate it would have been a much easier job for Labour. It will be a very uphill task but it is not without hope. As you say it would require the vast majority of LibDems voting tactically, but I do get the feeling the general public have woken up to the value of doing precisely that. Also there is now a much more organised campaign promoting tactical voting. Fingers crossed.

Surprising opinion poll released yesterday. I've lived in South Norfolk for 60 years and I never dreamed I would see figures like this. 

Edited March 19 by dylanisabaddog

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

If Bolton West, my home constituency swings, then it will probably be a shelling for the Tories. By that, I mean they will lose by over 100 seats, if not 150. Bolton West was the safest Tory seat in Greater Manchester after being something of a bellweather before then.

They'll lose Bolton North-East, which is a very tight one anyway, and Bolton South-East is a very safe Labour seat.

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

37 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If Bolton West, my home constituency swings, then it will probably be a shelling for the Tories. By that, I mean they will lose by over 100 seats, if not 150. Bolton West was the safest Tory seat in Greater Manchester after being something of a bellweather before then.

They'll lose Bolton North-East, which is a very tight one anyway, and Bolton South-East is a very safe Labour seat.

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That will tighten up in the election, I reckon. Don't think Reform will get as many votes in the end. My guess would be that Reform are within a per cent or so of the LibDems, who always bat well in a couple of districts here (definitely Smithills and to a lesser extent Horwich and Westhoughton) but those districts are only a small part of the whole seat.

That said, Heaton (where I am), Lostock, Markland Hill and Chew Moor will usually tend blue and Lostock is probably the most prosperous/prestigious part of town so they're understandably largely going to vote blue.

Edited March 19 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

On 22/02/2024 at 00:30, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

 

what about a lottocracy? Government by randomly chosen individuals in constituencies, rather than by unfulfilled wishful aspirational ideas from politicians hooked on power?

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/helene-landemore-open-democracy/

Monarchy effectively does that. Someone chosen arbitrarily based on nothing other than being born to the previous leader, with the added bonus of being groomed from birth to fulfil the role.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

On 29/02/2024 at 06:03, dylanisabaddog said:

It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on the Norfolk vote

I'm at a loss why anyone would give a **** on spending time legislating and dedicating police resources to stopping people hunting and killing vermin for fun with so many real issues to deal with.

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

On 19/02/2024 at 14:52, horsefly said:

That's my constituency too. Had the lazy lump fatty Bacon remained as candidate it would have been a much easier job for Labour.

Aren't there rules against fat shaming among those of the more 'virtuous' and 'enlightened' political persuasion, or is there an exemption for people the virtuous ones don't like?

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'm at a loss why anyone would give a **** on spending time legislating and dedicating police resources to stopping people hunting and killing vermin for fun with so many real issues to deal with.

85% of the British public disagree with you, which I suppose is probably about par for the course. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-poll-boxing-day-league-against-cruel-sports-ban-theresa-may-election-a8127851.html

 

Edited April 3 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Aren't there rules against fat shaming among those of the more 'virtuous' and 'enlightened' political persuasion, or is there an exemption for people the virtuous ones don't like?

No, there aren't any rules of which I am aware. 

Unfortunately, neither are there any rules to make an MP do their job. But occasionally even Conservative Party members know a bad one when they see one and some actually got involved in a missing person poster campaign about a year ago. As a result he has been deselected. Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to consider his lifestyle and reduce the future burden on the NHS. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

28 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

85% of the British public disagree with you, which I suppose is probably about par for the course. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-poll-boxing-day-league-against-cruel-sports-ban-theresa-may-election-a8127851.html

 

Over 50% of the population thought it was a good idea to leave the EU if you want to reduce discussion to that sort of asinine remark. And if you took a poll of people who actually live in the countryside instead of idiots who base their opinions of foxes on Beatrix Potter, you'd get a very different picture.

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

34 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

No, there aren't any rules of which I am aware. 

Unfortunately, neither are there any rules to make an MP do their job. But occasionally even Conservative Party members know a bad one when they see one and some actually got involved in a missing person poster campaign about a year ago. As a result he has been deselected. Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to consider his lifestyle and reduce the future burden on the NHS. 

 

 

We have an environment where we've had MPs among the Conservative and Labour ranks murdered for their opinions, MPs regularly receive death threats and are routinely abused by the public. I appreciate that Horsefly is dyed in the wool tribal Labour and there's a general election coming up, but as someone who's clearly well-read and educated he should be doing a lot better than trivial and unpleasant personal remarks about MPs as a bit of electioneering with nothing to say on a policy front.

Aside from that, my comment wasn't directed to you, if you're going to respond at least have the grace to engage with the point I was making than a pointless deflection segueing into something that could easily be reduced to just  'I f*king hate Tories' and still be as useful as as a remark.

@horsefly, now you've started off in the most negative way possible attacking both the outgoing Conservative MP in the most personal and vapid way possible and the incoming candidate personally, perhaps you'd maybe like to offer some insight into the Labour candidate you're backing and what they stand for, if anything.

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

35 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Over 50% of the population thought it was a good idea to leave the EU if you want to reduce discussion to that sort of asinine remark. And if you took a poll of people who actually live in the countryside instead of idiots who base their opinions of foxes on Beatrix Potter, you'd get a very different picture.

No you don't get a different opinion. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people think that killing animals for fun, particularly in such a barbaric manner, is extremely unpleasant and should be banned. If foxes need to be culled by far the best way is lamping. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

31 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

We have an environment where we've had MPs among the Conservative and Labour ranks murdered for their opinions, MPs regularly receive death threats and are routinely abused by the public. I appreciate that Horsefly is dyed in the wool tribal Labour and there's a general election coming up, but as someone who's clearly well-read and educated he should be doing a lot better than trivial and unpleasant personal remarks about MPs as a bit of electioneering with nothing to say on a policy front.

Aside from that, my comment wasn't directed to you, if you're going to respond at least have the grace to engage with the point I was making than a pointless deflection segueing into something that could easily be reduced to just  'I f*king hate Tories' and still be as useful as as a remark.

@horsefly, now you've started off in the most negative way possible attacking both the outgoing Conservative MP in the most personal and vapid way possible and the incoming candidate personally, perhaps you'd maybe like to offer some insight into the Labour candidate you're backing and what they stand for, if anything.

I rather suspect that if your MP had basically gone into hiding and done nothing for getting on for nearly 5 years you would take a different view. South Norfolk has had a Conservative MP forever. Regardless of politics, most of them have done their job properly and represented us in Parliament. Quite simply, Richard Bacon hasn't, in fact he's the only Tory MP I've ever known to be deselected for laziness. And bearing in mind he was claiming £40k a year for secretarial expenses when he didn't even have a secretary he's probably lucky he's only been deselected. A truly disgusting man. 

Like most prospective Labour candidates i suspect the one for Norfolk will simply say they'll do their best and promise not to steal from us. That would make a nice change wouldn't it?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I rather suspect that if your MP had basically gone into hiding and done nothing for getting on for nearly 5 years you would take a different view. South Norfolk has had a Conservative MP forever. Regardless of politics, most of them have done their job properly and represented us in Parliament. Quite simply, Richard Bacon hasn't, in fact he's the only Tory MP I've ever known to be deselected for laziness. And bearing in mind he was claiming £40k a year for secretarial expenses when he didn't even have a secretary he's probably lucky he's only been deselected. A truly disgusting man. 

Like most prospective Labour candidates i suspect the one for Norfolk will simply say they'll do their best and promise not to steal from us. That would make a nice change wouldn't it?

Jesus Christ, you Labour lot just can't get yourself out of the gutter  can you? You've raised concerns about abuse in politics yourself, but Instead of backing off and accepting the point, you double down on your right to bring politics down to the lowest level possible. Bacon isn't even there at the next election, but you wil defend to the death the right to be vindictive in the most base way possible, won't you?

Pathetic.

 

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Jesus Christ, you Labour lot just can't get yourself out of the gutter  can you? You've raised concerns about abuse in politics yourself, but Instead of backing off and accepting the point, you double down on your right to bring politics down to the lowest level possible. Bacon isn't even there at the next election, but you wil defend to the death the right to be vindictive in the most base way possible, won't you?

Pathetic.

 

Richard Bacon is fat. Actually last time he was seen in public he looked morbidly obese to me. Strange for you to be so politically correct that you're outraged that someone called a fat person fat. He is fat and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the English language. 

Perhaps if we called fat people fat more often we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Over 50% of the population thought it was a good idea to leave the EU if you want to reduce discussion to that sort of asinine remark. And if you took a poll of people who actually live in the countryside instead of idiots who base their opinions of foxes on Beatrix Potter, you'd get a very different picture.

Sorry, I forgot to mention earlier that I don't base my opinions on the countryside on Beatrix Potter. I have been lucky enough to live in or near the countryside for 60 years and have a large circle of friends in the shooting community where I worked as a child. Those people have almost universal contempt for people who hunt foxes. Bearing in mind your posting history I'm not remotely surprised that you take the opposite view. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Richard Bacon is fat. Actually last time he was seen in public he looked morbidly obese to me. Strange for you to be so politically correct that you're outraged that someone called a fat person fat. He is fat and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the English language. 

Perhaps if we called fat people fat more often we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. 

Like I said: Pathetic.

As for the fox hunting, you have friends in the 'shooting community'. Nobody who hunts for real has an issue with any sort of hunting that kills animals. Also, if you're that certain that everyone in the rural community is as hostile to it as townies, it's hard to guess at your thinking as to why it'd be interesting to see what the fox-hunting policy had on Norfolk in particular in the general election.

By the way, my cat killed a bird the other day. Just thought you'd like to know so you could have a good cry over it, or maybe call for legislation and a special police task force to stop birds getting killed by cats. Beats tackling the housing crisis.

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

31 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, I forgot to mention earlier that I don't base my opinions on the countryside on Beatrix Potter. I have been lucky enough to live in or near the countryside for 60 years and have a large circle of friends in the shooting community where I worked as a child. Those people have almost universal contempt for people who hunt foxes. Bearing in mind your posting history I'm not remotely surprised that you take the opposite view. 

Where do you stand on sport fishing out of curiosity? You know, dangling a bit of food in the water on a sharp hook to pull it out of the water by the hook by its lip only to throw it back again, to add insult to injury. That's tormenting animals purely for the amusement of the person fishing. What's the Labour policy on that?

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

As for the fox hunting, you have friends in the 'shooting community'. Nobody who hunts for real has an issue with any sort of hunting that kills animals. Also, if you're that certain that everyone in the rural community is as hostile to it as townies, it's hard to guess at your thinking as to why it'd be interesting to see what the fox-hunting policy had on Norfolk in particular in the general election.

That is an extraordinarily ignorant comment. There are large numbers of farmers that shoot who will not allow hunts on their land.

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Where do you stand on sport fishing out of curiosity? You know, dangling a bit of food in the water on a sharp hook to pull it out of the water by the hook by its lip only to throw it back again, to add insult to injury. That's tormenting animals purely for the amusement of the person fishing. What's the Labour policy on that?

I'm not aware that Labour has a policy on fishing for sport. Perhaps that's because they're not stupid. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not aware that Labour has a policy on fishing for sport. Perhaps that's because they're not stupid. 

Oh really? So you'll sit in judgement of people hunting and killing foxes for sport, but injuring a fish with a sharp hook, causing it pain (that's proven) exhausting it while you fight it to pull it out of the water leaving it stranded out of water while you photo it, then dumping it back with a hole in its mouth that leaves it able to eat less efficiently, and possibly so worn out it can't evade predators on release is okay to do purely for entertainment? What exactly is stupid about the comparison? Too many working class people who torment fish for fun? Or maybe you fish yourself and enjoy it?

Edited April 4 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That is an extraordinarily ignorant comment. There are large numbers of farmers that shoot who will not allow hunts on their land.

 

I'm sure there are some, but the existence of your original question exposes your dishonesty over suggesting views objecting to fox hunting are uniform in rural and urban areas.

Edited April 4 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

I used to be a keen fishermen - but I'd agree it's also barbaric when used simply for pleasure / fun. Are we monsters? I'm wiser now and think better of it!

Same goes for hunting with dogs. It's equally some medieval left over sport which should be consigned to history along with c o c k-fighting and bear baiting.

Else please don't call us a civilized society if such needless cruelty can be condoned.

Edited April 4 by Yellow Fever

[dylanisabaddog 5,010]

38 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

I'm sure there are some, but the existence of your original question exposes your dishonesty over suggesting views objecting to fox hunting are uniform in rural and urban areas.

Perhaps it would help you to understand if I told you that the people who shoot game birds consider their 'sport' isn't cruel. Pheasants for example live for anything up to 3 years in the wild and suffer an instant death. It puzzles me that anyone gets pleasure from it but I can't deny it's far less cruel than the life of the chickens I buy from Tesco. What people who shoot are worried about is that they are getting tarred with the same brush as the barbaric people who enjoy hunting foxes. I can see their point. I could make a very good case against fox hunting but unless you're a vegetarian it's very difficult to argue against shooting. 

I find it extraordinary that you should think I'm dishonest when your complete ignorance has you lumping together two completely different sets of people. People who hunt almost invariably shoot but people who shoot rarely hunt. Does that make sense? I should add that in general we are talking about two different sets of people who tend not to mix. They move in different circles and they don't shoot together. I know numerous people who shoot pheasants but none at all who hunt. This is my experience of Norfolk so it may be different elsewhere. 

Of course the number of people who shoot is small and the number that hunt is tiny and getting smaller. Personally I think anyone who indulges in either activity is odd. I think that people who rejoice when their cat kills a bird are odd as well. 

I know absolutely nothing about fishing for 'sport' other than to say it sounds very boring. But I suppose at least the fish survive. Labour won't stop it because it is a hugely popular activity and they want to get elected. But in any case it's not a subject I have ever known be discussed at a political level. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I used to be a keen fishermen - but I'd agree it's also barbaric when used simply for pleasure / fun. Are we monsters? I'm wiser now and think better of it!

Same goes for hunting with dogs. It's equally some medieval left over sport which should be consigned to history along with c o c k-fighting and bear baiting.

Else please don't call us a civilized society if such needless cruelty can be condoned.

Personally, I've never hunted and I've never fished. I once went out with a friend with an air rifle shooting at birds when I was about 14 and purposely aimed to miss because I didn't like the idea of killing a bird.

 

41 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Perhaps it would help you to understand if I told you that the people who shoot game birds consider their 'sport' isn't cruel. Pheasants for example live for anything up to 3 years in the wild and suffer an instant death. It puzzles me that anyone gets pleasure from it but I can't deny it's far less cruel than the life of the chickens I buy from Tesco. What people who shoot are worried about is that they are getting tarred with the same brush as the barbaric people who enjoy hunting foxes. I can see their point. I could make a very good case against fox hunting but unless you're a vegetarian it's very difficult to argue against shooting. 

I find it extraordinary that you should think I'm dishonest when your complete ignorance has you lumping together two completely different sets of people. People who hunt almost invariably shoot but people who shoot rarely hunt. Does that make sense? I should add that in general we are talking about two different sets of people who tend not to mix. They move in different circles and they don't shoot together. I know numerous people who shoot pheasants but none at all who hunt. This is my experience of Norfolk so it may be different elsewhere. 

Of course the number of people who shoot is small and the number that hunt is tiny and getting smaller. Personally I think anyone who indulges in either activity is odd. I think that people who rejoice when their cat kills a bird are odd as well. 

I know absolutely nothing about fishing for 'sport' other than to say it sounds very boring. But I suppose at least the fish survive. Labour won't stop it because it is a hugely popular activity and they want to get elected. But in any case it's not a subject I have ever known be discussed at a political level. 

Or to put it another way, they don't want people to go after them the same way they go after fox hunters.

Honestly, I'm with you in not understanding it. I don't like needless cruelty.

You're calling me ignorant, but ultimately you have no defense at all for being utterly self-righteous about condemning people who enjoy killing foxes for sport because they happen to enjoy it, even though it actually is fulfilling a pest control function at the same time, while happily dismissing gratuitous cruelty to fish for reasons only known to yourself when sport fishing throwing the fish back serves no purpose whatsoever other than a cruel form of entertainment. So why would you be so enthused about going after one and not the other?

I think your comment about 'lumping together two different sets of people' betrays what this is all about. Your motivation against fox hunting is motivated by spite towards 'toffs' having fun rather than any real cares about animal welfare. It'd be 'stupid' to go after sport fishing because they'd alienate a fair number of their voters starting that sort of culture war. It's left-wing populism that Labour is trotting out as a rabble rouser ahead of a general election, to distract from not having much to say about the real issues that people care about that haven't been addressed under the Conservatives, but in reality probably won't be addressed under Labour given their reticence about talking about them at this stage.

 

Edited April 4 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I used to be a keen fishermen - but I'd agree it's also barbaric when used simply for pleasure / fun. Are we monsters? I'm wiser now and think better of it!

Same goes for hunting with dogs. It's equally some medieval left over sport which should be consigned to history along with c o c k-fighting and bear baiting.

Else please don't call us a civilized society if such needless cruelty can be condoned.

I agree with a lot of that, but on questions like these I think there's a trade off between 'civilised' and functional. It'd be truly civilised if nobody wanted to bait bears, throw arrows at bulls, hunt foxes, or fish with hooks for fun. But they do, so the question is whether it's really beneficial to society to repress activities because you don't approve rather than it actually affecting you in any way and to pick a fight in the process rather than encourage a culture to move away from those practises. Anti-smoking has been very successful without taking such a draconian authoritairian approach. All of these just create more schisms in society that distract from the things that really matter to people and promote a cohesive society.

 

Edited April 4 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheRock 171]

The below has some quite interesting data in. It suggests South Norfolk will be held by Tories.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats

Some interesting analysis regarding Reform in there too. It looks like no possible sweatheart deals will help the Tories this time. The Tory/Reform vote is split, but even if thier vote share becomes "unsplit" like in 2019, neither party can get within toucing distance of the Labour polling numbers in nearly any seats, even Ashfield where Anderson's seat is would be a coin flip.

 

Edited April 4 by TheRock

[Daz Sparks 1,186]

Coming in on the fox hunting debate, I fully understand the need to control certain species. Hunting foxes with dogs, however, is ineffective as a useful tool for controlling numbers. I couldn't care less who is doing it, toffs or no, it should be entirely outlawed in all forms. 

As for angling, I'm not pro or vehemently against, and as Dylan has mentioned, the Labour Party are taking a pragmatic approach, that from a political viewpoint,  I agree with. No party of any colour has ever involved themselves in any proposition that could possibly restrict angling. As such singling out Labour on this subject does not make for a discussion. 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

37 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

Coming in on the fox hunting debate, I fully understand the need to control certain species. Hunting foxes with dogs, however, is ineffective as a useful tool for controlling numbers. I couldn't care less who is doing it, toffs or no, it should be entirely outlawed in all forms. 

As for angling, I'm not pro or vehemently against, and as Dylan has mentioned, the Labour Party are taking a pragmatic approach, that from a political viewpoint,  I agree with. No party of any colour has ever involved themselves in any proposition that could possibly restrict angling. As such singling out Labour on this subject does not make for a discussion. 

Yes - Clearly some pests / vermin need to be controlled or culled - in a humane and effective manner but not for 'fun'!

So called sports that require deliberately breeding species for 'shoots i.e. grouse is simply immoral.

As to angling - yes very popular not helped by the old 'they don't feel anything' debunked nonsense. I suspect as we become ever more enlightened it too will go much the same way - but perhaps fifty or a hundred from now! Barbless hooks are indeed now in use.

That doesn't mean the 'low hanging fruit' shouldn't be dealt with fully sooner rather than later. Fox hunting, hare coursing etc. That these have been seen as rural sports (as opposed to ****-fighting, rat baiting etc) only paints the 'rurals' as backward yokels. As stated  - I enjoyed fishing but eventually in my late teens I rose above my 'enjoyment' to question what I was doing and moreso why?