Leadsom's latest "good idea".

[Harrowby Hall]

According to The Independent Andrea Leadsom's latest policy initiative is to bring back fox hunting. She says it will improve animal welfare.

If it were not for the fact that it is the Conservative Party grassroots that holds her future in its hands I would say she was dead in the water ....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to The Independent Andrea Leadsom's latest policy initiative is to bring back fox hunting. She says it will improve animal welfare.

If it were not for the fact that it is the Conservative Party grassroots that holds her future in its hands I would say she was dead in the water ....

But think of the opportunities for the entrepreneurial to go behind the horses to collect the dung for fertiliser and fuel.

It wont be long before a 3p refund is put on lemonade bottles.

Sunny Uplands!

[Aruntraveller]

Aye - in an alternate universe Ms May would be a dead cert.

In this febrile pre-Brexit atmosphere all bets are off.

Of course in an alternate universe such a stupid decision as Brexit would have been avoided - but hey ho.

[Hope]

According to The Independent Andrea Leadsom's latest policy initiative is to bring back fox hunting. She says it will improve animal welfare.

Whilst I'm not sure that the idea is workable, it is also true that many foxes suffer for days under the current system - whereby they have to be shot or killed in same other way.  They are not killed 'instantly' when shot at.

[Brownie]

I don't think it is actually the killing, or death, of the fox that is the cause for concern by those anti-fox hunting.  It's the idea of people being worked up sufficiently to hunt a wild animal that they will not use for anything.
"The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable", is a much used phrase to describe that.  It is terrifying for the fox and they are often badly injured before being cornered and shot.

Urban foxes can be trapped with food as bait, it isn't at all difficult as they will go anywhere for food.  Then euthanised.  However that is an expensive business.

There are expert marksmen employed by some local councils who will shoot foxes, presumably they have to trap it in some way first, they don't just shoot willy nilly

A hunt doesn't ride out every week and they only catch one fox at a time.

[Hope]

There are expert marksmen employed by some local councils who will shoot foxes, presumably they have to trap it in some way first, they don't just shoot willy nilly.

And the expert marksmen aren't going to trap the animals.  They will shoot them unaided by such aids. 

This vetinerary opinion of all the forms of culling foxes makes worrying reading, albeit was written before or at about the time of the ban.

http://bit.ly/29vUHDn

[Brownie]

Very interesting Hope.  Maybe foxes aren't the pests that we are led to believe. 

I know I said this on another thread but I used to feed foxes, only stopped when urban foxes were becoming too bold.  There are plenty of woodland areas nearby where they can hunt and I still see foxes sometimes that look pretty healthy.

An organisation called The Fox Project, local to me, suggested trapping mangey foxes which they would then take away and treat for mange, or anything else, illness or injury.  We tried to do that in the garden but for some reason the fox wouldn't go into the trap! 

I note from what it says in the article that being penned up for a long period of time is distressing to foxes and detrimental to their health which is not surprising.  I was told to close the trap at 9pm and open it the next day as long as I was going to be around to 'phone the project so they could collect quickly.  They must have been aware of how painful it would be for the fox to be in captivity for any length of time.   However the project were quite successful in treating sick foxes and letting them go back to the wild.

Perhaps we should leave nature to care for or cull, everything has its place.  There will always be predators but on the positive side foxes catch, amongst other things, rats and rabbits and there are always complaints from country areas about how there are too many rabbits.

Mrs Leadsom won't win too many votes by being pro-fox hunting.

[Harrowby Hall]

Mrs Leadsom won't win too many votes by being pro-fox hunting.

You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Even Mrs Leadsom knows that it wouldn't stand a snowball in Hell's chance in the House of Commons, and it will never even get there.

Her primary objective is becoming Conservative Party leader and she calculates that this is a message which will sway sufficient of the chinless wonders and straw-sucking hayseeds that populate the Conservative party in the country to give her an advantage over Mrs May.

When she has become the next prime minister she can forget it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Even Mrs Leadsom knows that it wouldn't stand a snowball in Hell's chance in the House of Commons, and it will never even get there.

Her primary objective is becoming Conservative Party leader and she calculates that this is a message which will sway sufficient of the chinless wonders and straw-sucking hayseeds that populate the Conservative party in the country to give her an advantage over Mrs May.

When she has become the next prime minister she can forget it.

Yep...say anything, be anyone.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Harrowby,

You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Even Mrs Leadsom knows that it wouldn't stand a snowball in Hell's chance in the House of Commons, and it will never even get there.

Her primary objective is becoming Conservative Party leader and she calculates that this is a message which will sway sufficient of the chinless wonders and straw-sucking hayseeds that populate the Conservative party in the country to give her an advantage over Mrs May.

When she has become the next prime minister she can forget it.

I get it but do the rest of the United Kingdom get it, the whole Tory party will say anything to wrong foot the voters, keep them from noticing what a complete mess they have made of this country.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The constant here, even given the seismic shock of Brexit is still the political cycle.
which follows the following pattern since 1979 and possible before.

Governments are voted out.
Each party has around three consecutive periods of government.
The opposition party is considered unelectable for the first couple of terms.

Whatever the vote on Brexit this pattern seems to be holding.

I seem to recall people on this forum expecting labour to be out until 2025 with a fundamentally unpopular tory party in Government and that seems to be the likely position.

[Brownie]

I do get it  .

[Nearly Sane]

The constant here, even given the seismic shock of Brexit is still the political cycle.
which follows the following pattern since 1979 and possible before.

Governments are voted out.
Each party has around three consecutive periods of government.
The opposition party is considered unelectable for the first couple of terms.

Whatever the vote on Brexit this pattern seems to be holding.

I seem to recall people on this forum expecting labour to be out until 2025 with a fundamentally unpopular tory party in Government and that seems to be the likely position.

Except a pretty basic analysis shows the apparent pattern as incorrect, even leaving aside the idea of a constant being something that only works from 1979. After the election in 79, and for much of the parliament following it, there was no assumption that the Tories would get elected again. Indeed for much of it, it looked that they would not but a combination of the SDP and the Falklands lead to the 83 victory. In 97 the swing to Labour was such that it would have been extraordinary has they lost the next election something very different from 79. In 2010, we had a coalition which effectively does not fit into the pattern at all. The assumption about about Tories winning if an election is in 2020, is based on the boundary changes that they will pass. In that sense the 2020 election will be closer to 2001.

[floo]

YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to The Times Andrea Leadsom said it would be “sensible” not to appoint a man to look after young children because of the danger that he might be a paedophile.

Of course some men are paedophiles, as are some women, but the vast majority are not!

[Brownie]

YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to The Times Andrea Leadsom said it would be “sensible” not to appoint a man to look after young children because of the danger that he might be a paedophile.

Of course some men are paedophiles, as are some women, but the vast majority are not!

I agree, the overwhelming majority are not (and a very small minority of sexual abusers are women, generally in cahoots with a bloke).

However I wonder if Andrea Leadsom actually said that, as it was reported.  It amazes me that she could be so daft.  I think it is more likely that she was asked specific questions and her answers were edited to form a statement.  I do not trust the press!  It'll come out but damage done by that time.

Later:  Found the article below from last night's Evening Standard.  It says she "appeared to say", etc.
I haven't yet watched and listened to the video which will be more definitive.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/andrea-leadsom-suggests-men-should-not-be-nannies-because-they-may-be-paedophiles-a3296421.html

[Hope]

According to The Independent Andrea Leadsom's latest policy initiative is to bring back fox hunting. She says it will improve animal welfare.

If it were not for the fact that it is the Conservative Party grassroots that holds her future in its hands I would say she was dead in the water ....

Oddly enough, many hunts have traditional Labour Party as well as Tory Party supporters in them.  At the same time, there does seem to be a problem with merely shooting foxes.  Often, even the best marksmen are only injuring them.

[Hope]

Perhaps we should leave nature to care for or cull, everything has its place.  There will always be predators but on the positive side foxes catch, amongst other things, rats and rabbits and there are always complaints from country areas about how there are too many rabbits.

Mrs Leadsom won't win too many votes by being pro-fox hunting.

Aren't we just predators according to the belief of some evolutionists?

[floo]

I agree, the overwhelming majority are not (and a very small minority of sexual abusers are women, generally in cahoots with a bloke).

However I wonder if Andrea Leadsom actually said that, as it was reported.  It amazes me that she could be so daft.  I think it is more likely that she was asked specific questions and her answers were edited to form a statement.  I do not trust the press!  It'll come out but damage done by that time.

Later:  Found the article below from last night's Evening Standard.  It says she "appeared to say", etc.
I haven't yet watched and listened to the video which will be more definitive.

She is daft, I have no doubt she said it, she certainly hasn't denied it.

[floo]

Aren't we just predators according to the belief of some evolutionists?

Chapter and verse?

[ProfessorDavey]

YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to The Times Andrea Leadsom said it would be “sensible” not to appoint a man to look after young children because of the danger that he might be a paedophile.

Of course some men are paedophiles, as are some women, but the vast majority are not!

This is appalling and straight down the line, good old fashioned prejudice.

But it isn't just her, sadly.

I own a nursery which caters for babies and children aged up to 5. The staff have always been overwhelmingly female (due to who applies for jobs rather than discrimination in our recruitment practices) but we have occasionally had male employees, who may be allocation as the 'key worker' for a particular child. More than once we've had parents complain about being allocated a male employee and although they have been smart enough not to overtly say it is because he is a man, it was abundantly clear that was the reason.

And this isn't just an issue of prejudice it also is a problem for the early development of kids. Increasingly kids grow up to perhaps the middle of junior school (age 9-ish) without ever encountering a male role model in their education. The staff at play group/nursery are all women, like-wise nursery, likewise infant school and so on. I think that is a real problem.

[SusanDoris]

And still on the subject of Andrea Leadsom, I read my local MP's blog the other day where he comments briefly on new cabinet appointments and says he knows Leadsomwell, as they study the Bible together. Well, it doesn't matter so much as far as my local MP is concerned, I suppose, but for someone who even considers that she is a suitable person to lead the country, I consider it a serious lack in common sense. If she wants to be a believer, then keep it right out of her political life.


Prof davy: Do you think we have any cause to be optimistic about the political future of the country? I'm hoping that three brexiters being given the job of managing it all will show them up to be wrecking the whole thing!

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof davy: Do you think we have any cause to be optimistic about the political future of the country? I'm hoping that three brixiters being given the job of managing it all will show them up to be wrecking the whole thing!

Do you know what - I am really, really despondent for our country and the people in it at the moment.

We seem to be divided in a way that I've never known before - fractured between rich and poor, Scotland and England, migrants and xenophobes, left and right, old and young, remain and leave. And in a manner that last one simply brought to the surface simmering divisive resentment.

As a country I don't think we have moved on in many ways from decades ago, we haven't embraced what it means to be a modern, progressive, forward and outward looking country. Too many seem to think that we can become 'great' by looking backwards and inwards rather than looking outwards and forwards.

We seem to have lost touch with, surely, the key to success as a country - how we treat the people who live their regardless of their background. To ensure that all can achieve to the best of their potential. We simply need to make Britain a great place to live, to work, to bring up a family, to grow old and ultimately to die.

[SusanDoris]

Prof davey
thank you for your response. I agree with what you say.
There are too many saying, in a vague,  reminiscent woolly sort of way, well, we were great before, you know.
There's just no point in continuing that dialogue.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof davey
thank you for your response. I agree with what you say.
There are too many saying, in a vague,  reminiscent woolly sort of way, well, we were great before, you know.
There's just no point in continuing that dialogue.

And won't those people don't seem to get was that we became 'great' (in a way consistent with the victorian era etc) not by looking inward and backwards, but by looking outward and forwards. The victorians were in thrall to some great perceived golden Georgian era - no there attitude was 'to hell with the past, lets embrace progress like there's no tomorrow'. Looking backwards it is easy to forget how dizzyingly innovative and progressive the victorian era was - sure to us it looks very 'traditional' but at the time it was scarily modernist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And still on the subject of Andrea Leadsom, I read my local MP's blog the other day where he comments briefly on new cabinet appointments and says he knows Leadsomwell, as they study the Bible together. Well, it doesn't matter so much as far as my local MP is concerned, I suppose, but for someone who even considers that she is a suitable person to lead the country, I consider it a serious lack in common sense. If she wants to be a believer, then keep it right out of her political life.

With you up to the point you lapsed into a prejudiced atheist position..