Government by the minority? [Archive] - Forever Delayed

PDA

View Full Version : Government by the minority?

Terminal Young Thing

06-05-2004, 21:14

mr bowlase

06-05-2004, 23:25

Just a thought...

At what point does minority rights end and majority power begin?

At the House Of Commons probably!

Takk

06-05-2004, 23:30

Well the cuntryside alliance would argue (and do) that a majority of people don't care about hunting - it's just a minority in favour and a minority against. Whether this is true I don't know. I mean I wouldn't be surpised in the labour party being against it because it's the plaything of the rich.

But it's an interesting question. An animal rights lab at cambridge was shelved because of the threat from a small group of animal rights activists. Whilst I admire people having principles, I really do not see why they should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

littlebabyeverything

06-05-2004, 23:53

Just a thought...

we live in a supposed democratic country, where majority votes supposedly rule.
?

Its been decades since the UK had a true majority government. Typically labour and Tory get 30-40% with the Lib-dems at 20% and others such as SNP making up the balance.

dailegs11

06-05-2004, 23:54

Why do you think it's wrong to call people nigger's or tell a woman to get back in the kitchen?

Note: this is a comment, and by no means a start of flaming for my opinion.

Takk

06-05-2004, 23:56

Because judging people based on their physical appearance, race or sexuality is ignorant, unfair, wrong and offensive to people? (and this seems to be rather a hijacking of the thread :p)

dailegs11

07-05-2004, 00:00

Because judging people based on their physical appearance, race or sexuality is ignorant, unfair, wrong and offensive to people? (and this seems to be rather a hijacking of the thread :p)
Thanks for generalising tim! RACIAT! :surprise: :twisted:

Takk

07-05-2004, 00:01

I beg your pardon?

Daniel

07-05-2004, 00:01

what the fuck?

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 00:02

Why do you think it's wrong to call people nigger's or tell a woman to get back in the kitchen?

Note: this is a comment, and by no means a start of flaming for my opinion.

Well one is seen as an offensive and racist term, whilst the other is a sexist comment :p

and nobody likes racism or sexism nowadays :mrgreen:

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 00:03

Thanks for generalising tim! RACIAT! :surprise: :twisted:

ok, now i have no idea what you are going on about?

lets get back on topic now as it is quite an interesting topic

dailegs11

07-05-2004, 00:12

Takk

07-05-2004, 00:31

To which I think I deserve a little praise.

Hardly...:p

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 00:32

It's a sb joke, sorry. There was this girl on there that used to call anybody that made a un pc comment, raciat's. Being a misspelling of racist. I know of this person, as she has tried talking to me on msn, trying to start a forum war, to which I didn't do. To which I think I deserve a little praise. Sorry, to all I confused, I shall leave you debate sensibly.

im sure that people on this board are aware of that little joke.

oh dear dailegs, the things people lead you to believe.

a little friendly word though...i wouldn't use the term 'raciat' on this board dear

Stewart

07-05-2004, 01:09

It's a sb joke, sorry. There was this girl on there that used to call anybody that made a un pc comment, raciat's. Being a misspelling of racist. I know of this person, as she has tried talking to me on msn, trying to start a forum war, to which I didn't do. To which I think I deserve a little praise. Sorry, to all I confused, I shall leave you debate sensibly.

Dai, hate to break it to you, but the person using Raciat on SB was someone taking the piss out of Kelly on this forum.

Gar was told by his webhost to stop this long before you came along, so the person on MSN was either a figment of your imagination, or someone copying the raciat word, which has since become quite a common word due to this incident

dailegs11

07-05-2004, 01:13

No, well this person was *behind* me. Sorry, and thank you for letting me know, for any offence I may of caused. :confused: :S

Stewart

07-05-2004, 01:16

dailegs11

07-05-2004, 01:19

I must take back the assumption I had, about only upper class twats did fox hunting.

Narcolept

07-05-2004, 01:36

nobody likes racism or sexism nowadays :mrgreen:

actually han, everyone still likes it...there just not allowed to say so any more

Terminal Young Thing

07-05-2004, 08:34

Its been decades since the UK had a true majority government. Typically labour and Tory get 30-40% with the Lib-dems at 20% and others such as SNP making up the balance.

Yeah, but that's still a majority of sorts, just not an absoloute majority. The same sort of majority you need to win a seat in the commons, just more than any one other candidate.

*lisa simpson*

07-05-2004, 15:30

Just a thought...

we live in a supposed democratic country, where majority votes supposedly rule.
But with all these single issue pressure groups and minority sectors, are we being ruled, or influenced by the minority?

The majority of people want to ban fox hunting, but due to a vocal response from a few, it hasn't been.

At what point does minority rights end and majority power begin?

i think the problem in this country (although actually i don't think it's a problem, more of a difficulty in political terms) is that it's now so multi-ethnic/cultural, there are so many different views kicking about, all of whcih have a right to be heard, that to be honest most people are in the minority as no one can ever be 100% in agreement. this is not a bad thing from a country point of view, i think the more diversity the better, but in political terms it could be hard as you may never get enough votes/names on your petition to actually push an issue to a place where it can be seriously debated.

Fiona

07-05-2004, 16:59

*lisa simpson*

07-05-2004, 17:26

For foxhunting:

I work in a country pub, as some of you may know. We put on a breakfast for the hunters before they go, and then a dinner when they come back. Id like to recite a comment before they went to me, and one after they came back

Before:

"Its more about having a bit of fun these days than killing anything, Ill have a pint please"

After

"Nah we didnt even see a single fox, Ill have a pint please"

If foxhunting was banned, something these people enjoy would be stopped. A lot of people just enjoy getting dressed up and prancing about on their horses for a bit, then going back home. Problem is, these animal activists in cities think that they are brutal slaughter of animals. So, if it was up to me, let foxhunting continue. And these people arent all that rich, they borrow the suits and rent the horses from a stable, they just like prancing about a bit.

my best mate hunts regularly, always has. we've known eachother since we were 5 and at no point did i say 'are you going to be a foxhunter in later life cos if you are i can't be your friend?'

bascially we just agree to differ - on the saturdays in questoin i'll ring 'nice weekend?' 'yes, went hunting' 'have fun?' yes. how are you?'

it's just something she enjoys she's very horsey and rural. and for the record i doubt she's ever killed a fox in that way, although she's an ex vet nurse (and her stepdad is a vet and my other best mate is also a vet) so between them they've (humanely) killed a lot of fwuffy bunnies....

the fun blame monster

07-05-2004, 19:03

If foxhunting was banned, something these people enjoy would be stopped.Good. Every time I've seen hunters they STRESS the NECESSITY of getting rid of foxes. If they just enjoy prancing around then why do they use the dogs? Why do they talk about how they need to get rid of foxes? Why do they ask the local vicar to bless the hounds before a hunt?

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 22:18

actually han, everyone still likes it...there just not allowed to say so any more

and we have the joys of political correctness now in order to avoid causing offence.

I swear, if someone calls me a waiter instead of a waitress again i may deck them!

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 22:33

Good. Every time I've seen hunters they STRESS the NECESSITY of getting rid of foxes. If they just enjoy prancing around then why do they use the dogs? Why do they talk about how they need to get rid of foxes? Why do they ask the local vicar to bless the hounds before a hunt?

i really don't think that the hunters manage to bump off that many foxes...fro what stewart said earlier, i kind of get the impression that it isnt uncommon to not even see a fox on a hunt.

it's one of those traditions that is now just done as something to get dressed up for, not for the pure sport of killing foxes.

we take animals like tigers out of the wild and put them in Zoos for people to stare at. animals are used in stage shows (Sigfried and Roy anyone) and yet nobody kicks up that much of a fuss about that.

why is it ok to take an animal out of its habitat in another country, and bring it over to another country just so it can either be stared at by snotty nosed kids with ice cream all down their faces, or just be taught to jump through hoops and allow some idiot to put their head in its mouth (it was either Sigfried or Roy who learnt that wasn't such a good idea :mrgreen: )

im not saying it is right to hunt foxes for sport, and im not saying we have the right to do this because we are humans and they are only foxes. it is just a tradition, followed by a small number of people.

Another thing that gets my goat is animal rights activists who are against testing medicines on animals. It is wrong to test makeup and stuff on animals, as that is not a necessesity and it is good that testing makeup on animals has stopped. however, it is those that are against animal testing full stop
I'm sure an animal rights activist wouldn't think twice if they had a child who was seriously ill, and could only be cured by some drugs that had been tested on animals, or else they would die. I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about taking the drugs for themselves if they were going to die if they didnt take the stuff that had been tested on animals.

I think it is hypocritical to say that animal testing is wrong. We don't have the right to do it, but, at the end of the day it has to be done in order to save lives. If it was a situation where your life or a loved ones life would be saved, but it meant 10 little bunnies had to die, im 100% sure that people would choose to save their own bacon

a bit off topic there, but there ya go :p

Terminal Young Thing

07-05-2004, 23:01

the problem with testing on say, mice, is that we are not mice.
There have been cases of drugs being fine on mice, but having bad side effects on humans.

And Fiona, no this isn't an essay. I was just interested. OK?

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 23:07

yeah i know what you mean by that, but there isn't much of an alternative.

because you would need volunteers in order to test things out on humans, and i cant see many people being up for that.

Terminal Young Thing

07-05-2004, 23:09

I understand the need for tests.

I don't understand the need for a mouse to grow a human ear on it's back.

MissHanna

07-05-2004, 23:13

I understand the need for tests.

I don't understand the need for a mouse to grow a human ear on it's back.

Ok, i agree with that one.

In my opinion, that is bordering on the line of using animals to test makeup on. Having a mouse with an ear on its back is not going to benefit many people.

Also, scientists are now able to grow extra teeth in mice. when i first heard this i thought that it meant that a little mousey was running about in a cage with a big molar on its back.

socialist cook

08-05-2004, 09:44

What annoys me about the animal testing issue is that you rarely hear from the scientists, who carry it out. In my school, we had an antivivisectionist followed by a woman from the Countryside Alliance, they were not really related I felt.

However, animal rights nutters who feel the need to attack people who work where they test on animals should be locked up. Its making the people who work there feel scared and ashamed of what they are doing (even if they themselves question the methods- its their job) and its also often damaging property. It is therefore a crime. I also thought the people who released mink into the New Forest a couple of years ago, were muddled headed due to the damage to other animals habitat they caused.

No real opinion there on animal testing, as I think the arguments have been given already.

Fox Hunting: I am neither for or against it, but I can see more sides for it especially down here in Devon. Foxes are pests and cause many farm animals to die, which farmers depend upon for their livelihoods. Also, as Stewart commented there is a secondary industry to back up hunting, so those people would have to find work elsewhere. But snares can also be more damaging and brutal to foxes than a rifle shot(I am not condoning either as methods). I also think fox hunting is not important enough to be considered for debate in Parliament. :rolleyes:

Minority Government: In the 2001 election I think 25% of the electorate did not vote for Labour. When Labour only gains about 44% of the vote, that is serious, because it questions the legitimacy of the government :p However, the way to stop minority government is to increase the turnout!

the fun blame monster

08-05-2004, 11:08

im not saying it is right to hunt foxes for sport, and im not saying we have the right to do this because we are humans and they are only foxes. it is just a tradition, followed by a small number of people.But just because it's a tradition doesn't mean it should be followed. If it's cruel and horrible, then why not stop it? I actually think the fact that it's treated as "a bit of fun" is what makes it so much WORSE. If they were going after foxes and saying "look, we HAVE to do this, we don't like it but it's a necessity", then I MIGHT understand. But to turn something so cruel into fun and sport is just sick. And I still believe they their intention is to get and kill a fox, even if they don't always end up doing it. Like I said, why do they use the dogs? Why bother if it's only a bit of fun prancing around?

Takk

08-05-2004, 13:14

i really don't think that the hunters manage to bump off that many foxes...fro what stewart said earlier, i kind of get the impression that it isnt uncommon to not even see a fox on a hunt.

Well basing everyone's view of hunting on one hunt isn't exactly scientific is it, they don't catch a fox every time, but the fact remains they do catch them.

it's one of those traditions that is now just done as something to get dressed up for, not for the pure sport of killing foxes.

Not really, it IS about hunting foxes, hence the dogs and everything. The state opening of parliament is about dressing up...

we take animals like tigers out of the wild and put them in Zoos for people to stare at. animals are used in stage shows (Sigfried and Roy anyone) and yet nobody kicks up that much of a fuss about that.

Not really the same thing is it? And a lot of people do kick up a fuss about that. The main point of zoos these days is to help protect and conserve species that have been wiped out in the wild or are being driven to extinction by selfish human behaviour. Also to educate future generations on the really important issues. Zoos have an incredibly important purpose, so I don't really see how you can compare them to ripping apart a wild animal for fun :S.

Circuses and performing animals are a different matter.

it is just a tradition, followed by a small number of people.

And this justifies it how?

I think it is hypocritical to say that animal testing is wrong. We don't have the right to do it, but, at the end of the day it has to be done in order to save lives. If it was a situation where your life or a loved ones life would be saved, but it meant 10 little bunnies had to die, im 100% sure that people would choose to save their own bacon

Well said. And yes there is a difference between humans and animals, and bad scientific research where products were tested on animals and then used on humans has led to some bad side effects. But the point is that you have to use the knowledge wisely, ie testing it on humans too, considering the differences and predicting them.

Whilst I respect the views of animal rights activists it disgusts me that they threaten and even endanger the lives of scientists involved in animal testing. It's hypocritical, and I really don't see why a tiny minority should dictate what happens.

*didz and jam*

09-05-2004, 17:53

I understand the need for tests.

I don't understand the need for a mouse to grow a human ear on it's back.

Aha. That wasn't actually genetical modification. That was just someone who'd sewed and ear on a mouse's back.

Terminal Young Thing

09-05-2004, 18:33

why did they feel the need to do that?

wheresmejumper

09-05-2004, 19:55

Minority Government: In the 2001 election I think 25% of the electorate did not vote for Labour. When Labour only gains about 44% of the vote, that is serious, because it questions the legitimacy of the government :p However, the way to stop minority government is to increase the turnout!

This does raise serious questions for the legitimacy of the government. There is and will always be the debate between 'efficient' government and 'deomcratic' government. JS Mill argued for a 'pluralist' system where every interest and minority is represented exactly proportionately. However the PR systems advocated would raise massive questions about letting minority parties hold the balance of power...just imagine a state where the BNP was in this position...*shudder*

What annoys me is Labour act like they have the support of the vast majority of people, eg top up fees, war in Iraq, 67 tax rises etc....I personally would argue for compulsory voting with the option 'none of the above' then the parties would have to get their act together or it would be embarrassing...and then at least we would have a government which had to listen... :)

Fiona

09-05-2004, 20:04

:up:

Haven't quite got the hang of this yet have you...there's a delete post button if you click edit on the first post you made up there...:up:

Terminal Young Thing

09-05-2004, 22:19

What annoys me is Labour act like they have the support of the vast majority of people, eg top up fees, war in Iraq, 67 tax rises etc....I personally would argue for compulsory voting with the option 'none of the above' then the parties would have to get their act together or it would be embarrassing...and then at least we would have a government which had to listen... :)

Or another example, the conservative government in 1992 has 43.7% of the vote, with turn out of 77.7%. Meaning 32.8% actively supported any actions they made.

What right did they have?

Takk

09-05-2004, 22:23

The sunday times today predicted, on the basis of polls, that Labour would win 36% of the vote at the next general election, if Blair stays - with the Tories on 40%.

However, this would still allow them to win the election, because of distribution of votes. It would only give them a minority government but still, it reinforces the whole point about the government not necessarily having the support of the people.

alexliamw

09-05-2004, 22:47

As far as elections go, some form of PR really needs to be brought in, but no-one will do it except the Lib Dems, and they'll never get enough power without it, so its a vicious cycle. As for pressure groups, which seems to be a completely seperate individual, I don't think the existence of pressure groups with minority support necessarily undermines government. They can legitimately express their views, and just because they don't have majority support doesn't mean they don't have important points to raise on which they might at least moderate government policy (eg, Liberty, for example, works for civil liberties, judicial rights, asylum seekers' rights, etc, which isn't a popular cause, but is important).

Democracy will never be perfect and the elite will always rule to some extent. Just look at the influence of the civil service. Having said this, though, we have a relatively decent share of power over our own lives. PR, however, I'd certainly advocate to help this.

Briefly, on animal testing, I think it really should be allowed for medicinal purposes. No scientist does it just for fun or out of sadism: its used for useful purposes. Of all the reasons why animals might be injured, its the most important (compared with, say, meat-eating). I know several people who eat meat but are anti-vivisection. This just isn't consistent. A lot of it is based on pity for animals. You get far more protest about cuddly animals than rats and mice, for example. But I think testing is the lesser of two evils.

I'll go to the other thread for my views on foxhunting.

littlebabyeverything

09-05-2004, 23:08

:up: Agrees but you put it more elequontly that I ever could.

An extreme group should never hold the balance of power. In theory in that situation the mainstream parties would form a coalition together, rather than either one negotiating with an extreme party that was far from their ideology. In reality I think another election would probably be called.

Its not just Britain where government by the minority is a problem - it has been widely reported that Bush was elected with a minority of votes in 2000, ignoring all the chaos in Florida.

For the record I am strict vegetarian but essentially pro-animal testing for medical purposes. I am quite comfortable with animals dying so me or my family might live longer.