The New Conservative Era


The Tories have already put fox hunting back on the table by vowing to enact everything in their controversial manifesto.

The document promises a free vote on overturning Labour’s 2004 hunting ban – but many thought a coalition partner would force David Cameron to back down.

Instead he will storm ahead with the bill after winning a shock overall majority in the Commons.

I used to be anti-fox-hunting back in the days when I voted Lib Dem. But by the time the Labour government banned fox hunting, I’d come to think that it was really more about knocking people off their high horses than protecting foxes. It was class warfare, disguised as an animal rights movement. “We don’t like you, and we don’t like what you do. So we’re going to ban you from doing what you like to do.”

By that time I’d also moved out of the city and into the countryside, and found very different attitudes to foxes. In the city, where there aren’t many foxes, they were regarded as cuddly furry animals (like polar bears and seals) with Rights to Life. In the country, where there are lots of foxes, they were regarded as vermin, no better than rats or mice. And their numbers needed to be kept down.  If this wasn’t done by fox hunting, it would have to be done some other way. And whatever way it was done, lots of foxes were going to wind up dead.

When the ban finally came into force, and I watched the local hunt setting out anyway (they weren’t banned from riding on horses accompanied by dogs), I finally ceased to be anti-fox-hunting completely. At least foxes had a chance against the hunt: they could outrun it or “outfox” it. They had next to no chance against traps and poison and sharpshooters.

And when, a few years later, the smoking ban came into force, I couldn’t help but see the similarities with the fox hunting ban. It was all being done in the name of “health” this time, but it was actually another case of “We don’t like you or the things you like to do, so we’re going to ban the things you like to do.” This was the law being used selectively as a weapon.

So I’m glad that the new government is going to have a free vote on the fox hunting ban. But I suspect that, given their slim majority, unless all Conservative MPs are in favour of repealing the hunting ban,  it’s unlikely to be repealed.

Nevertheless, if they’re going to have a vote on fox hunting, then they’re quite likely to have a vote on the smoking ban too at some point in time. It was just another piece of spiteful legislation, after all. And the Conservative party was never in favour of it to start with.

And I suspect the Conservatives are going to have plenty of time to undo all the bans and restrictions and regulations that Labour brought in. Because last week’s election effectively destroyed the Lib Dems, setting them back 40 years. I doubt they’ll ever recover. And given the enormous row that’s broken out in the Labour party since their humiliating defeat last week, it looks like it’s going to take a long time for them to re-invent themselves all over again. The “progressive” left is dead, and the 2020 election really ought to be a walkover for the Conservatives, assuming they manage the economy suddessfully. Maybe the 2025 election too. Britain has entered a new Conservative era.

But UKIP won’t be going away. After only 4 days in the wilderness, Nigel Farage is back as its leader: the party didn’t accept his resignation. The EU and immigration (and now the smoking ban) are likely to remain hot issues.

I expect the Conservatives to now gradually roll back the toxic legacy of Labour. They look like they may have already started:

Tories go to war with the BBC

David Cameron, infuriated by the corporation’s election coverage, appoints BBC critic John Whittingdale to “sort out the BBC” ahead of the royal charter review next year


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The New Conservative Era

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    I really hope so, too, Frank, but of course repealing (or relaxing) the smoking ban wasn’t in their manifesto. And with Cameron (having voted for PP), showing some rather worrying signs of having become something of a born-again anti, he might not be quite as keen to re-allow smoking in pubs and clubs as he is to allow people to hunt foxes.

    Incidentally, fox hunting isn’t quite as fair now as it used to be. It used to be the case that if a fox “went to ground” before the dogs caught it, it was considered to have “won the chase” and left to fight another day (the logic being that that way only the old or sick animals would be culled – fit and strong ones usually always being able to outrun the hounds sufficiently well to reach its burrow); these days, if the fox goes to ground, the “diggers” are called in and the creature is dug out and chased on until it’s simply too tired to go on running. I’m not anti-hunting by a long streak, but I do think that loading the dice in that way changes it from a necessary – even valuable – country pursuit into purely unfair entertainment for humans who simply can’t accept it when they’ve been beaten.

    • waltc says:

      Harley, do you know about tinyurl? When you’ve got a really long URL, copy it, go to, paste it into the appropriate box on the form you find there, and they’ll shorten it to less than a dozen characters in all. Then you can post or email the short version easily and it works for all time.

      • Rose says:

        Thanks Walt, I had tinyurl on the old computer, but didn’t have it on this.
        Now I do.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Ya walt problem is I didn’t know the hURL was that long unless you paste it first into a notepad you don’t know. Ya I tinyurl a lot when I know. If Franks wordpress had edit function Id have fixed that

  2. nisakiman says:

    Although I’ve never been interested in fox hunting, I always considered it to be one of those quintessentially English traditions, like the hereditary House of Lords, the Queen, traditional pubs and Bitter Ale. Blair and his cronies managed to destroy much of that centuries-old tradition in a few short years. The politics of envy at work.

    Oddly enough, when I lived in the Cotswolds, I knew many people (including most of the regular customers at my local) who were avid followers of the local hunt and only one of whom was a Lord. The rest of them were ordinary working people who just loved the thrill of the chase. Even most of the riders in their finery were just local farmers and small businessmen who could afford the upkeep of a horse. Not many ‘toffs’ at all.

    I do wonder if that now Farage has been persuaded to carry on in his role as leader of UKIP he will be able to have any influence on what iDave does. I’m thinking here about the smoking bans, PP etc. Because although UKIP only gained one seat, the fact that they garnered 14% of the actual votes in England will not be forgotten at Tory HQ. That’s a considerable block of votes that I’m sure the Conservatives will be reluctant to alienate.

  3. mikef317 says:

    Foxes. London vs “rural” England. Not many foxes in London.

    Deer. (Walt Disney’s Bambi.) New York City vs suburban / rural New York State. (The plural of “deer” is “deer.” I want to add an “s” but the Oxford American Dictionary says I can’t.)

    I think opinions on killing animals might depend on where you live.

    I’ve lived in NYC all my life, and I’ve never crossed paths with a deer in the city. But I’ve visited friends in suburban / “rural” areas (say an hour’s drive). You can often look out the window and see a deer. Nice. Communing with Nature. But….

    Frequently there are too many deer. If you grow vegetables in your back yard, deer may drop by for an easy meal. If you’re a farmer, you’re almost guaranteed multiple visits from multiple deer. If you’re driving down a road, a deer may run in front of your car. Hitting a deer isn’t as serious as hitting another car, but these are large animals, so the accident wouldn’t be trivial.

    The deer population (at least for humans) is a problem in many areas. (New York State also has a bear population, and these animals ain’t Bambi.) NYS has many laws (mostly humane) about hunting. They try to strike a balance between humans and wildlife. You can’t just shoot deer whenever you like. There are restrictions that define “hunting season” and limit the number of deer (2?) that any single person can kill. If the deer population grows too large, hunting restrictions are reduced. If too many deer are killed, restrictions are increased. (A reasonable balance? Might the deer disagree?)

    In America, most hunters eat the animals they kill. (I’ve never hunted, but I’ve been given deer meat, and I’ve cooked and eaten it.) Just out of curiosity, can I go to an English pub and order fox and chips?

    • Rose says:

      Just out of curiosity, can I go to an English pub and order fox and chips?


      “The English country gentleman galloping after a fox — the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable.”

      Oscar Wilde

      In banning the hunt, I think New Labour took Oscar Wilde’s description a little too much to heart and ignored the advice of country people.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Fox not eaten,hell they let the dogs eat it as in any hunt…………its their reward for hunting them for their masters. In fla they use deer dogs and the first ting at the kill when field dressing is give the puppies their due,the entrails.

        You see deer dogs aren’t let loose,they are kennel kept dogs for one reason so they will always chase just deer,otherwise theyd lose what they been trained to pursue.

  4. Rose says:

    “But by the time the Labour government banned fox hunting, I’d come to think that it was really more about knocking people off their high horses than protecting foxes. It was class warfare, disguised as an animal rights movement.”

    Labour made that abundantly obvious at the time.

    I’ve never particularly liked the idea of fox hunting, but it does need to be done and I accept that, being a terrible softy about such things, it’s one of those jobs I’m happy to let others do and if they can make a day out of it I have no objections.

    I always thought that drag hunting must fun for the local running club but I never wanted fox hunting banned and it just confirmed everything I thought about New Labour when they did.
    Like the continental cafe culture they wanted us to adopt, 24 hour drinking and their startling idea of building casinos in deprived areas supposedly to encourage regeneration.

    England seems to disappoint them at every level.

    Blair hits back at casino critics – 2004

    And a more scrambled justification you couldn’t imagine, it was apparently in part, to “protect the children.”

  5. Pat Nurse says:

    I’d like to believe it but the Tories clearly have no intention of treated smokers as people or even voters. It appears they intend to continue the persecution with added vigour and a sense that they have a mandate to beat up smokers even more than Labour did.

    I base my assumptions on the fact that rabid smokerphobics like Hunt and Ellison all got their jobs back in Cabinet and there were nice little promotions for the thugs Soubry and Milton.

    How long before quit or face jail? 5 years? 10? It’s coming.

    • Rose says:

      It depends how many more people they want to go over to UKIP.
      “Beware the Scots” worked once, but would it work again?

    • Edgar says:

      For politicians, there always has to be an ‘enemy within’. They understand very well the human tendency to be hypercritical of others and hypocritical of oneself, so they use this to generate social conflict. This allows them to say to a chosen group ‘Look, we are on your side against those miscreants, we’ll ‘crack down’ on them for your (and your children’s) benefit.’ (Have you noticed how often politicians begin their sentences with ‘Look, …’. They start a sentence with an imperative because they are telling you what to do or think.)

    • smokervoter says:

      I’m with Pat on this one. But then again I’ve always seen things her way from the very first time I laid eyes on Tea and Cigarettes.

      Somehow I can’t see Etonian Dave ever uttering “Could we please get these awful people off our back?”. No, it’s still Nigel or Nothing in my book and I’m thrilled to no end that they rejected his resignation. Worse yet, iDave still smokes in secret, the lowest of the low. A stealth smoker who partakes in private but publicly considers openly smoking people to be rabble.

      What went haywire was a failure of British smokers to vote their pocketbooks and souls in sufficient numbers to really make a difference. If we surmise that UKIP derived half of their total from smokers, that amounts to a measly 2 out of 10 smokers.

      What an earthquake there would have been if UKIP had picked up 20% of the vote (or 6 million votes). If we surmise a half-share again consisting of smokers, we’re all the way up to — wait for it — 3 out of 10!

      But as Pat says just wait until there’s a jail sentence attached to smoking a cigarette and watch that figure jump to 6 out of 10 !

  6. smokervoter says:

    Wait, I’m not done yet.

    In the States, Blacks and Latinos have formed a potent 8 out of 10 voting bloc which the pols (Democrats and now Republicans) fall all over themselves to cater to.

    I’m waiting for the day here in California when the guvnor awards the Medal of Honor (and $10,000) to every illegal immigrant Latino who successfully runs the border. Hell, automatic immunity from our draconian smoking laws might even be forthcoming. (Latinos smoke a lot, I’ve got two very functional eyes, sod all the phony Gallup-Healthway polls, at least 25% puff from what I see.)

    My point is this; until politicians fear a smokers’ voting bloc in the neighborhood of, at the very least, 6 out of 10 (4 million in the UK and 16 million in the US with turnout considered) they will continue to run riot over all of us. And jail sentences will loom in the future.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Zayats Liontamer‎Smokers Against Discrimination

    9 hrs ·


    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

    One Of The Most Important Scientists In The World: “Most Cancer Research Is Largely A Fraud”

    “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who…

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)

    The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.

    This man has been around the block, and obviously knows a thing or two about this subject. And he’s not the only expert from around the world expressing similar beliefs and voicing his opinion.

    Here is another great example of a hard hitting quote when it comes to scientific fraud and manipulation. It comes from Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement.

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)

    The list goes on and on. Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and is also a former editor of its journal, publicly stated in a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that:

    “My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.” (source)

    He also alluded to the fact that cancer treatment, in general, has been a complete failure.

    Another interesting point is the fact that most of the money donated to cancer research is spent on animal research, which has been considered completely useless by many. For example, in 1981 Dr. Irwin Bross, the former director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institute (largest cancer research institute in the world), said that:

    “The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies.” (source)

    Today, treating illness and disease has a corporate side. It is an enormously profitable industry, but only when geared towards treatment, not preventative measures or cures, and that’s an important point to consider.

    Another quote that relates to my point above was made by Dr. Dean Burk, an American biochemist and a senior chemist for the National Cancer Institute. His paper, “The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants (source),” published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934, is one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry.

    “When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” (source)

    He also stated that:

    “Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” (source)

    In the April 15th, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UK’s leading medical journal, editor in chief Richard Horton stated:

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” (source)

    n 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated:

    “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”

    In 2009, the University of Michigan’s comprehensive cancer center published an analysis that revealed popular cancer studies are false, and that there were fabricated results arising due to conflicts of interest. They suggested that the fabricated results were a result of what would work best for drug companies. After all, a large portion of cancer research is funded directly by them. You can read more about that story here.

    There is so much information out there, and so much of it is coming from people who have been directly involved in these proceedings. There is really no shortage of credible sources willing to state that we live in a world of scientific fraud and manipulation.

    All of this can be attributed to the “corporatocracy” we live in today, where giant corporations owned by a select group of “elite” people have basically taken control over the planet and all of its resources.

    This is precisely why so many people are flocking towards alternative treatment, as well as focusing on cancer prevention. Much of what we surround ourselves with on a daily basis has been linked to cancer. Everything from pesticides, GMOs, multiple cosmetic products, certain “foods,” smoking, and much much more. This is something that is never really emphasized, we always seem to just assume that donating money to charities will make the problem go away, despite the fact that their business practices are highly questionable.

    That being said, so many people have had success with alternative treatments like cannabis oil – combined with a raw diet or even incorporated into their chemotherapy regimen – that we should not feel as though there is no hope for the future.

    The official stance on cannabis is a great example of the very practice of misinformation that I’m talking about. Its anti-tumoral properties have been demonstrated for decades, yet no clinical trials are taking place.

    I am going to leave you with this video, as I have done in previous articles. It provides a little food for thought. Ignorance is not the answer, although this information can be scary to consider, it’s nothing to turn a blind eye towards.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.