Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
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
|
Not banning something isn't serving a client group - it is simply following the basic and worthy principle that you don't restrict people's freedom to go where they like and do what they want unless there are pressing reasons to do so.
The animal welfare argument is highly contentious. What parliament did - as you say, taking advantage of an unusually large Labour majority - was to enforce a moral view on a minority by statute.