Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
In democracy, one group wins an election, another loses. It is then for the winner to govern for all, not to favour just its own client group.
A specific measure, criminalising a widely-followed activity for no coherent reason, is a classic example of what not to do with a democratic mandate. The animal welfare argument was, and still is, contested - not that it was ever truly about animal welfare. Let's be clear here - an activity that was a legitimate pastime one day, was a criminal act the next. That is draconian. And the reason for it was neatly summed up as the vote was announced in the Commons by Dennis Skinner, who shouted, "that will show the toffs". It was just an ugly old piece of class warfare.
|
I agree that is how it's supposed to work, but in reality not so much.The campaign against fox hunting had been raging for years even decades before it was banned, it took a Labour government with a big enough majority to end the practice**in other words they served their own client group as you say ,but you could also say as the conservatives had done by not banning it despite overwhelming public support for a ban.
** i can't remember if Labour had included banning fox hunting in any of their manifesto's or was it just something that labour used ,knowing they would have large public support for the ban