Hain pain

Who will be pleased with Peter Hain’s departure?

•    The nuclear power industry. He was their strongest opponent in cabinet with his constructive advocacy of clean renewables – especially the barrage.
•    The mean vindictive witch-hunters who have judged him guilty on the basis of smears and innuendos.
•    The anti Welsh-language, Welsh devolution, little Englanders and West Britons who resent his unique work on devolution.
•    Racialists and others with nostalgia for apartheid.
•    Hardcore tribalists in Northern Ireland who resent the results of his peace building.
•    Those who put sport above human rights and resent his leadership of the Stop the Seventies Tour campaign.

Those who will be sorry.

•    The 140,000 cheated pensioners who will have 90% of their pension restored  because of his work in cabinet.
•    The majority of the people of South Africa of all communities, who appreciate his work in ushering in a just peaceful transition to majority rule.
•    Those who value having our own Government on the soil of our own country in Wales.
•    Many of his mutton headed political opponents who have been calling for his resignation without considering the alternatives.
•    His parliamentary colleagues and millions of other people who have long admired his prodigious work, his honesty, integrity and decency.

Cheated ?
The Channel 4 Political awards have been hijacked. The prize for the most inspiring political figure of the decade went to the Countryside Alliance. The Spectator describes the scene: 

"I was at the Channel Four political awards last night, where the strangest thing happened. Their main award - (most inspiring political figure of the last decade) - was given to the Countryside Alliance, introduced by Jeremy Irons. As he spoke, boos came from the crowd. At first, I thought it was a joke. Then when the award was accepted (by Ann Mallalieu, president of the Alliance) the booing grew louder and cries of "get off" could be heard as she delivered her acceptance speech. In front of an invited Channel Four audience. Incredible.

The incredulity of the audience was because CA had won only because the vote was rigged.

An un-named, unknown panel short-listed the hunting fanatics of the Countryside Alliance for the award. The full shortlist was  Tony Blair: Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness: Ken Livingstone: Alex Salmond:  The Countryside Alliance and Anti-Iraq war protesters:

There was campaign for mass voting for the animal abusers and – surprise, surprise - the  CA won. It’s hard to believe that the non-achievements of the CA could compete among reasonable people with any of the other nominees. What have they done? Lost a campaign against the Hunting Act and lost a fortune in appeals to courts against the Act ?  All the other nominees have  changed the course of history. The CA will not merit a footnote to a footnote when the history of the decade is written.

There is no check on multiple voting. This even after the string of recent scandals on rigged telephone ballots. The result is meaningless and the audience should be congratulated for greeting  it with contempt.

The awards and Channel Four are demeaned.

Famine
There is bonanza in the price of grain. Farmers producing grain have doubled their income this year in most European countries.

The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. Wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th breached the $10 per bushel level for the first time ever.

Lester Brown’s group The Earth Policy News sound a powerful alarm. As a result, prices of food products such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some of the worst in decades.

World grain prices have increased dramatically on three occasions since World War II, each time as a result of weather-reduced harvests. But now it is a matter of demand simply outpacing supply.

The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off.

Since the budgets of international food aid agencies are set well in advance, a rise in food prices shrinks food assistance. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), which is now supplying emergency food aid to 37 countries, is cutting shipments as prices soar. The WFP reports that 18,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses.

Rising food prices are translating into social unrest. It began in early 2007 with tortilla demonstrations in Mexico. Then came pasta protests in Italy. More recently, rising bread prices in Pakistan have become a source of unrest.

Corn futures prices for December 2008 delivery are higher than those for March, suggesting that market analysts see even tighter supplies after the next harvest.

The repercussions of the farmers’ new wealth  are grave. This is the a greater threat to world harmony than terrorism. When will the world wake up and see the danger?

Duped

Screaming main headlines in the Tory papers have howled for weeks that greedy MPs were about to vote themselves an above inflation pay rise this year.

In spite of an independently recommended rise of nearly 3%, the MPs have agreed to stick to the virtuous 1.9%. It will need a hard search of  tomorrow's press to find the minute reports of this restraint. There will no retractions by the papers for their repeated misleading of their gullible readers. Their bovine readers will continue to believe the previous headlines that MPs have grabbed a bumper rise as promised in the big headlines. You can fool lots of the people all of the time.

Comments

[LACS Supporter]

Patrick is quite right, and his experiences are not unusual. Hunting also had a horrendous impact on badgers as well as foxes. Blocking up setts, and not un-blocking them afterwards, and digging foxes out of them was common practice, resulting in desertion of the sett, and the death of badgers who were either locked out of, or into their setts depending on the time of day/night they were blocked. Those who care about animal welfare know all about that, and now, fortunately, thanks to years of campaigning, badgers are protected - though surprise - under threat again by farmers.
There have been so many ‘debates’ about hunting, too many in fact, with the Tories saying they’ll offer a free vote on it if they get in again, and the hunting fraternity desperately hanging on just in case. The public will be thrilled to know they can anticipate having to read and listen again to endless accounts of arguments for and against the ban, especially after the previous Tory complaints of wasting 700 (?) hours of debate and then ‘forcing’ the ban through. I suppose a question to be answered (which was raised on another blog) is that if no jobs were lost, no animals destroyed despite the threats of millions of horses and hounds being put down, and even more people hunting, why does the ban need repealing? Might not the public wonder why, with all that still in place, and everyone having such a good time still riding across the countryside and socialising with friends – which is the point of hunting isn’t it – the socialising - do you really need to kill foxes as well to further your enjoyment?
I suspect the public reaction may well be a very weary – you’ve been there and done that already – go away Dave.
Quite recently there was an article about hunting on CiF by the Tories favourite tally-ho totty, Kate Hoey. A commentator asked her to explain cubbing, but no response was forthcoming. Anyone here want to oblige?

[paulflynn]

Malcolm Stevas complains of rule by the majority.

It's called democracy, Malcolm. It's started in Greece about 2,000 and is coming here in dribs and drabs. We still have undemocratic institution like the Lords and Monarchy, but the Hunting ban was a fully democratic decision.

Politicians have not only a right but a duty to act against cruelty to all animals. Those who mistreat dogs or horses are rightly punished by the law. I am sure the abusers insist of their rights to torment animals.

Slowly civilisation progresses. Bear-baiting, cock fighting are gone. Bull fighting is one the way out. there will be no retreat from the UK ban on the cruelty foxhunting

Those who believe otherwise are deceiving themselves. I have attended these debates for 21 years in Parliament and I have the watched the growing realisation from MPs of all parties (including Tories0 that this barbaric bloodsport has no place in Britain.

[paulflynn]

David Jones, you are living in a fantasy universe created by the Daily Mail's daily lies?

I have know Peter Hain since 1969 and greatly admire his qualities and his many achievements. There is no dis-honesty in the man. You are condemning him before the Police have even decided whether there is case to investigate.

The press are wildly biased. Tory sleaze is ignored. Have a look about the cover up of Tory sleaze on this blog. It was on Friday. Bet you did not read about this in the Tory press that has filled you with these twisted notions.

[paulflynn]

Why should the Hunting Act be repealed John Brown?

Remember the CA's campaigns that a hunting ban would:-
Destroy the countryside
Lose 35,000 jobs
End the pageantry of hunting
Create an increased fox population plus more sheep killing
Tens of thousands of hounds and horses put down

The results of the Ban are
Countryside economy is healthy
Increased jobs, because more people are hunting without cruelty
The Pageantry continues
The fox population is down - because foxes are no longer bred to be tormented
No animals put down.

The only argument to repeal the act is to restore the pleasure of killing a living animals that some hunters get off on. That will never win a majority in Parliament.

As the superior species, we have a duty to protect all other creatures from gratuitous cruelty. That is a measure of the quality of our civilisation. Slowly we progress. Permitting wanton cruelty blunts our sensitivities. Those who are indifferent to animal suffering are close to indifference to human suffering.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Ah, a less hysterical and quite interesting post from Patrick. Polite too.
"The biggest indiscriminate killer by a landslide is the litle pussy cat."
Good point, and pussy cats are an excellent illustration of the supremacy of emotion & self delusion, as opposed to rationality, in human-animal relations in the UK. All those animal-loving cat-owners close their eyes to the massive toll of songbirds and so on, because Tiddles is a sweet little pussy. Unfortunately this extends to other species such as foxes and badgers: the Badger Act was passed in the early '90s by what is, of course, an overwhelmingly urban-centred House of Commons, so that even though badgers are widely considered to be a worse pest than foxes it's almost impossible to control them without risking heavy penalties.

As for foxes, Patrick shows worrying symptoms of "cuddly bunny syndrome":
"Foxes happen to be one of the most fascinating,alluring, and intelligent mammal species which is precisely why the nation overwhelmingly baked the ban..."
Foxes are certainly attractive & very interesting creatures - but like any other animal species they need to be controlled. Not eradicated, just controlled - I've shot a great many of them, and the farmers whose lambs or poultry are at risk from foxes are grateful.
When "The nation overwhelmingly backed the ban" on hunting it was not, I suggest, because people loved its allure, its "intelligence", because most of them have never seen a fox in their lives and get their ideas about animals from Walt Disney anyway. No, it was good old sentimentality, with the anti-hunting show of hands being egged on by agenda-driven zealots such as Paul Flynn - who might very well be one of the huge majority never to have seen a fox, for all I know...
Malcolm

[Malcolm Stevas]

"Malcolm Stevas complains of rule by the majority.It's called democracy, Malcolm. It's started in Greece..."
Yes, thanks for that, Paul - I had sort of heard that somewhere, having read the odd book and attended the odd lecture... But perhaps you're being disingenuous, knowing full well the difference between majority rule, and the tyranny of the majority. Have you, er, read JS Mill I wonder?
To put it crudely, if 65% of those polled vote to have shoplifters flayed and crucified on the supermarket wall, do we do it? I think not. So much for majority rule, something invoked by Leftists when it suits their agendas but otherwise swept under the carpet.

"..the Hunting ban was a fully democratic decision."
See above. "Fully democratic" by your lights maybe. So when are we having that referendum on the EU, I wonder...

"Politicians have not only a right but a duty to act against cruelty to all animals. Those who mistreat dogs or horses are rightly punished by the law. I am sure the abusers insist of their rights to torment animals."
Humbug! This sort of wildly tendentious stuff demeans your argument - the pretence that hunting foxes with hounds amounts to "torment" is wildly fallacious, not remotely to be compared with (say) bear-baiting, and you know this full well. Doesn't stop you from saying this kind of thing repeatedly though, does it, because for people of your political disposition the end always justifies the means... Why do I think of Stalin whenever those words come up...
Malcolm

[Chris Gale]

The killers for fun have got themselves into a right lather here haven't they Paul!
I mean they thought they had all the MPs silenced and how dare someone be critical of their sordid, barbarous habits!
Of course they think Cameron the hunter is going to ride to their rescue at the next election which is why they are pouring all their thugs into marginal seats.
Of course they are SO OPEN about all this that they have instructed their thugs not to mention once the issue of tearing animals apart for fun but pretend to be interested in anything other than that.

[Malcolm Stevas]

What a childish and literally pointless post by Chris Gale - hardly worth replying to, since there is not one substantive point made, but worth mentioning since it typifies the established taste of anti-hunting (etc) types for slanderous vituperation and silly name-calling when they don't get everything their own way. A taste shared, it seems, by Paul Flynn - see his latest reference to the CA, which is just more of the same... Really, one would have hoped an MP could do better.
Malcolm

[Barry]

Chris Gales makes a very valid point actually. Tory support for hunting has always been very low-key and largely behind closed doors. The most you hear from them is luke-warm promises of a 'free vote' but how often do we hear an empassioned defence of hunting? They know full well, as do the CA, that there is NO mass support for bringing in a law to kill animals for fun. I would love to see Cameron stand up and explain why foxes should be torn to shreds for Saturday morning entertainment; it would guarantee his party's relegation to third place at the next election.

[Hen Ferchetan]

" The mean vindictive witch-hunters who have judged him guilty on the basis of smears and innuendos"

I guess I'd be one of the witch hunters, but as you well know I've judged him guilty on the law - his breach of which you continue to ignore.
There has been no smears and innuendos this time. Everyone seems to agree that Hain wasn't some criminal mastermind, just incompetent.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Barry's post encapsulates key things to which I have already referred.
"..there is NO mass support for bringing in a law to kill animals for fun..."
'[killing] animals for fun' is exactly the phraseology that typifies the tendentious hyperbole undermining any claim by those employing it that their objections are mature, rational, objective...
'No mass support' - so what? Who gives a toss? Why should anyone's pursuit, in any society calling itself 'free', be dependent on 'mass support' whatever that might be - ? Does fox hunting impinge on your liberty in any way whatsoever? I doubt that extremely.

".. why foxes should be torn to shreds for Saturday morning entertainment.."
See above...

I do find it very worrying that people who doubtless spurn the sort of populist outrage they like to associate with readers of the red-top tabloids, should appear so willing to dispense populist majoritarian nostrums for the suppression of minority interests.
Would you claim superior moral sensibilities? Or some overriding moral right to diminish other people's liberty? Cobblers!
Malcolm