All the tabloids are on board with it, so naturally both tories and Starmer are super keen. In fairness it fits with their general view that your genetic heritage decides your behaviour.
It's a bit crass to compare it to racism or phrenology though.
So how, if at all, does this evil-dog controversy line up politically?
It’s a very useful diversion from all the other shit that’s going on.
This.
Well, maybe, but it also strikes me as the basic "housekeeping" sorta stuff that most voters expect their governments to do. And whatever the ideological stripe of the party in power, they're gonna be happier having the public seeing them tackle some violent threat that everyone's panicked about, rather than more polarizing issues.
My SiL lives next door to a petty gangster (the Things That Have Gone On in that house...) He has a dog which looks pretty much like a Bully XL (he would). The pic she sent was of it looking over the fence.
So, yes, I would be in favour of more control. You want a dog, keep a chichihua.
All the tabloids are on board with it, so naturally both tories and Starmer are super keen. In fairness it fits with their general view that your genetic heritage decides your behaviour.
An interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me. I notice that some dog experts don't think it works for that reason.
I notice that some dog experts don't think it works for that reason.
I just checked GB News, and they had an article based on an interview with a "dog behaviour expert" who said the ban was infeasible. No particular ideological slant beyond that, as far as I could see.
I notice that some dog experts don't think it works for that reason.
I just checked GB News, and they had an article based on an interview with a "dog behaviour expert" who said the ban was infeasible. No particular ideological slant beyond that, as far as I could see.
A common reason given is that breeds are not inherently nasty, but owners influence their dogs. I have no idea.
The... trouble is, as I said to my daughter this evening about a rather positive outcome for my stepson, to her 'Thank GOD!', 'And fucking genius NHS surgeons! Where else on Earth can you get free brain surgery on a Saturday night?! Even under this fucking government!'.
Apologies for not adding to current comment about dogs. Sad to read in The Guardian that the forthcoming by-election at Nadine Dorries constituency may be won by the Cons with a split opposition Labour and Liberal vote.
Apologies for not adding to current comment about dogs. Sad to read in The Guardian that the forthcoming by-election at Nadine Dorries constituency may be won by the Cons with a split opposition Labour and Liberal vote.
That would be the best possible result: a salutary reminder that if we don't (informally) work together we will let the Tories in.
Dorries constituency has only ever been Conservative or LibDem since it was formed. It was last won by another party in 1929. Since 2010 she has regularly got over 50% of the vote.
Sense has to prevail. In reality the Tories are unlikely to be completely wiped out in the next election, and Dorries constituency is the kind of seat they are likely to retain.
Attempting to contort oneself politically to win this kind of contest is unlikely to yield good results in the country as a whole or over longer term.
Does anyone remember this ? The election of Martin Bell in Knutsford, I think they should have done something like that.
I think what I remember most was the independent candidate called Miss Moneypenny who stood behind Neil Hamilton wearing an enormous pair of false breasts while he was trying to make his speech
Thanks @Alan Cresswell (I strongly recommend the book, it is a peculiar but fascinating read). Tragically Neil Hamilton did manage to make a political comeback.
Reverting briefly to the XL Bully issue, perhaps it is the owners who shoud be neutered and muzzled?
More seriously I wonder whether rather than the outright ban in the Dangerous Dogs Act a broader list of breeds and characteristics should be considered aggravating factors in any offences in which they're involved. I mean, if you've got a leonberger with an attitude problem and you set it on someone, that's going to be at least as big a problem as an XL Bully.
Characteristics would generalise the Act - so, rather than have long legal wrangles over whether or not a particular animal is or isn't a particular breed have phrases like "similar to a pit bull terrier" (and maybe then list examples of breeds that fit that description). Then rather than a ban have extra stipulations for those types of dog - always be under control (eg: on a suitable short lead (not the leads that unwind for miles) held by a suitable adult (not a child or someone the dog has the power to pull away from), never left unattended, etc), securely kept at home (eg: if loose in garden there are adequate fences, shut in a room or secure on a lead when the front door is open, etc), and maybe require owners and dogs to attend dog obedience lessons and also how to identify and reduce aggressive behaviour.
Characteristics would generalise the Act - so, rather than have long legal wrangles over whether or not a particular animal is or isn't a particular breed have phrases like "similar to a pit bull terrier" (and maybe then list examples of breeds that fit that description). Then rather than a ban have extra stipulations for those types of dog - always be under control (eg: on a suitable short lead (not the leads that unwind for miles) held by a suitable adult (not a child or someone the dog has the power to pull away from), never left unattended, etc), securely kept at home (eg: if loose in garden there are adequate fences, shut in a room or secure on a lead when the front door is open, etc), and maybe require owners and dogs to attend dog obedience lessons and also how to identify and reduce aggressive behaviour.
Whilst I agree with what you say, how are these stipulations to be enforced?
That's not a snarky question, BTW, but given the apparent inability of the police to deal with many types of crime, I just wonder...
There was a chap on Radio 4 the other day who had been called in as an expert by police to see if dogs ran foul of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which he called the worst legislation about dogs in the world!), so I assume people like him would be called in to give their opinion.
There was a chap on Radio 4 the other day who had been called in as an expert by police to see if dogs ran foul of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which he called the worst legislation about dogs in the world!), so I assume people like him would be called in to give their opinion.
There was a drop in fatalities caused by the types of dog involved after the DDA was enacted (now 32 years old). I would find critiques of it a lot more convincing if anyone was advancing a plausible path to something better.
There was a chap on Radio 4 the other day who had been called in as an expert by police to see if dogs ran foul of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which he called the worst legislation about dogs in the world!), so I assume people like him would be called in to give their opinion.
There was a drop in fatalities caused by the types of dog involved after the DDA was enacted (now 32 years old). I would find critiques of it a lot more convincing if anyone was advancing a plausible path to something better.
Given that the initial version of the DDA required the slaughter of all the proscribed dogs I should bloody well hope there were! The more important question is surely whether there were fewer fatalities and/or serious injuries caused by dogs in total, because if not then the legislation utterly failed in its stated objective.
I notice that Sunak said he would get rid of any meat tax. Trouble is, nobody has suggested it. You can expect more stuff like this before the election, "in shock move, Starmer proposes jean widths to be monitored", etc.
The thought of all the shite of this nature that we are to expect between now and the General Election is truly depressing.
Yes, it's ghastly, massive amounts of lying and posturing. I had to laugh at Sunak pretending he's not desperate about the polls. No, no, he's thinking about the British people.
<snip>No, no, he's thinking about the British people.
…and who they’ll vote for at the next election.
Certainly. I don't really feel condemning of him, he's joined this system of dog eat dog, so he has to try to win at all costs. But then karma strikes, usually.
Ye, it would be even funnier if it weren't true...
As you say, lies and posturing - in large quantities - are forecast for the next year or so...but, whatever happens, it will be The Will Of The People™...
It reminds me, I have a relative who was an MP for 30 years. I was going to say he was corrupted by it, but maybe he already was, I don't know. But any glimpses of that world struck me as quite awful. I guess he would say the same of my world. But he had more power.
It reminds me, I have a relative who was an MP for 30 years. I was going to say he was corrupted by it, but maybe he already was, I don't know. But any glimpses of that world struck me as quite awful. I guess he would say the same of my world. But he had more power.
My son is a senior advisor (not a political SPAD, but an expert) to one of the Secretaries of State. The tales he tells are hair-raising.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear. Renewables are great but they are not reliable.
If we stop using fossil fuels we have to make enough electricity to do everything that electricity does at the moment plus all cooking, all heating and the power for all vehicles.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear. Renewables are great but they are not reliable.
This is not entirely true. They are variable in output but predictable over fairly short period. Energy storage can be used to smooth the mismatches
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear. Renewables are great but they are not reliable.
If we stop using fossil fuels we have to make enough electricity to do everything that electricity does at the moment plus all cooking, all heating and the power for all vehicles.
Most electric vehicles will be charged overnight when demand is otherwise at its lowest. Octopus (and, I think, others) are already offering tariffs for people with EVs and/or household batteries with half-hour pricing so that people can set when they'll charge up based on price. It will take a bit of getting used to but domestic solar, commercial wind, some storage and some clever management of demand offers a good route forward.
Investing heavily in nuclear power doesn't seem like such a good idea when you have people like Putin at large in the world...which is surely dangerous enough right now...
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
Apart from everything already mentioned; it's thus a pity that his party cancelled nuclear investment programs and didn't invest in new plant for 10 years isn't it.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear. Renewables are great but they are not reliable.
If we stop using fossil fuels we have to make enough electricity to do everything that electricity does at the moment plus all cooking, all heating and the power for all vehicles.
Most electric vehicles will be charged overnight when demand is otherwise at its lowest. Octopus (and, I think, others) are already offering tariffs for people with EVs and/or household batteries with half-hour pricing so that people can set when they'll charge up based on price. It will take a bit of getting used to but domestic solar, commercial wind, some storage and some clever management of demand offers a good route forward.
I don't have a EV yet but do have a battery; Octopus allows me to charge that at night for a pittance while buying the excess power from my solar panels during the day at a considerably higher rate.
I have been making a net profit on electricity since about March.
Investing heavily in nuclear power doesn't seem like such a good idea when you have people like Putin at large in the world...which is surely dangerous enough right now...
I don't see any alternative. In any case, Putin already has nuclear weapons
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
Apart from everything already mentioned; it's thus a pity that his party cancelled nuclear investment programs and didn't invest in new plant for 10 years isn't it.
I don't recall any of the other parties being against the cancellation. However, we are where we are.
I wasn't referring to nuclear weapons as such, but the inherent dangers in having too many nuclear power stations - Chernobyl and Fukushima could happen again...
My EV gets charged during the day, or more often early evening (our Lidl has a charging station, so I use that when getting groceries after work). But, I like three floors up in a flat so can't charge at home. I do attempt to sync my charging with a windy day though.
Investing heavily in nuclear power doesn't seem like such a good idea when you have people like Putin at large in the world...which is surely dangerous enough right now...
I don't see any alternative. In any case, Putin already has nuclear weapons
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
Apart from everything already mentioned; it's thus a pity that his party cancelled nuclear investment programs and didn't invest in new plant for 10 years isn't it.
I don't recall any of the other parties being against the cancellation. However, we are where we are.
UK generation of nuclear power was around 50% higher in 2010 when Labour left office than it is in 2023, the Conservatives didn't even make provision for plants going off stream.
It's very convenient to put off major change by ten+ (roughly the build time of replacement nuclear plants), especially if your voting base is older voters.
Investing heavily in nuclear power doesn't seem like such a good idea when you have people like Putin at large in the world...which is surely dangerous enough right now...
I don't see any alternative. In any case, Putin already has nuclear weapons
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear.
Apart from everything already mentioned; it's thus a pity that his party cancelled nuclear investment programs and didn't invest in new plant for 10 years isn't it.
I don't recall any of the other parties being against the cancellation. However, we are where we are.
UK generation of nuclear power was around 50% higher in 2010 when Labour left office than it is in 2023, the Conservatives didn't even make provision for plants going off stream.
It's very convenient to put off major change by ten+ (roughly the build time of replacement nuclear plants), especially if your voting base is older voters.
I agree with you. However, I find it difficult to blame the 5th PM since 2010.
Of course, if the intent was to maintain nuclear generation then we needed to have broken ground on construction of 2-3 large power stations in the 1995-2005 period, which would have seen them coming on line at about the time that the older stations went off line. That's not a failing of the current government. It's only a failure of the Blair/Brown Labour government if they had a policy of keeping nuclear as a 20% ish contribution to power generation, it wouldn't be if they were planning on expansion of renewables and/or efficiency so that that level of nuclear capacity wasn't needed in the 2020s-2040s. My recollection is that the Labour government had a long-term ambivalent attitude to nuclear, with opposition to new nuclear being by far the majority view in that government (and, even the pro-nuclear factions were deeply critical of nuclear power being in private ownership). It was only around 2005 that the rising awareness of climate change (only 30-40 years late) that Blair finally decided new nuclear was needed, a decision that ultimately lead to Hinckley C being built - that process starting in 2008, although the timescales involved meant that the license wasn't granted until 2012, with proper build starting in 2017 (I'm not going to count the ground preparation of putting in access roads, car parks and accommodation for construction workers). For those who consider nuclear power to be essential, then the right decision was made by the Blair/Brown Labour government, and the 2010 Conservative government didn't do anything to block Hinckley C to any great extent - though, they also don't seem to have done anything to progress Sizewell C.
If nuclear is to be part of a push for net zero by 2050 then the UK government needed to have pushed for ground being broken on 2-3 other sites in the 2010-2020 period. Waiting for new technology (eg: small modular reactors) was just kicking the can down the road. The current government, having been in power over that period, carries the responsibility for not doing that - not that there's ever been any indication that the Conservative government has ever considered net zero by 2050 a priority, or even desirable, despite fine words at international meetings (words need to be backed by action - like enforcing efficiency regs for new builds, we could have had every building started since 2015, possibly earlier, requiring practically no extra energy to heat or cool).
Comments
It's a bit crass to compare it to racism or phrenology though.
Well, maybe, but it also strikes me as the basic "housekeeping" sorta stuff that most voters expect their governments to do. And whatever the ideological stripe of the party in power, they're gonna be happier having the public seeing them tackle some violent threat that everyone's panicked about, rather than more polarizing issues.
So, yes, I would be in favour of more control. You want a dog, keep a chichihua.
An interesting point, which hadn't occurred to me. I notice that some dog experts don't think it works for that reason.
I just checked GB News, and they had an article based on an interview with a "dog behaviour expert" who said the ban was infeasible. No particular ideological slant beyond that, as far as I could see.
A common reason given is that breeds are not inherently nasty, but owners influence their dogs. I have no idea.
Dorries constituency has only ever been Conservative or LibDem since it was formed. It was last won by another party in 1929. Since 2010 she has regularly got over 50% of the vote.
Sense has to prevail. In reality the Tories are unlikely to be completely wiped out in the next election, and Dorries constituency is the kind of seat they are likely to retain.
Attempting to contort oneself politically to win this kind of contest is unlikely to yield good results in the country as a whole or over longer term.
I think what I remember most was the independent candidate called Miss Moneypenny who stood behind Neil Hamilton wearing an enormous pair of false breasts while he was trying to make his speech
More seriously I wonder whether rather than the outright ban in the Dangerous Dogs Act a broader list of breeds and characteristics should be considered aggravating factors in any offences in which they're involved. I mean, if you've got a leonberger with an attitude problem and you set it on someone, that's going to be at least as big a problem as an XL Bully.
Whilst I agree with what you say, how are these stipulations to be enforced?
That's not a snarky question, BTW, but given the apparent inability of the police to deal with many types of crime, I just wonder...
There was a drop in fatalities caused by the types of dog involved after the DDA was enacted (now 32 years old). I would find critiques of it a lot more convincing if anyone was advancing a plausible path to something better.
Given that the initial version of the DDA required the slaughter of all the proscribed dogs I should bloody well hope there were! The more important question is surely whether there were fewer fatalities and/or serious injuries caused by dogs in total, because if not then the legislation utterly failed in its stated objective.
Yes, it's ghastly, massive amounts of lying and posturing. I had to laugh at Sunak pretending he's not desperate about the polls. No, no, he's thinking about the British people.
Certainly. I don't really feel condemning of him, he's joined this system of dog eat dog, so he has to try to win at all costs. But then karma strikes, usually.
Ye, it would be even funnier if it weren't true...
As you say, lies and posturing - in large quantities - are forecast for the next year or so...but, whatever happens, it will be The Will Of The People™...
My son is a senior advisor (not a political SPAD, but an expert) to one of the Secretaries of State. The tales he tells are hair-raising.
I believe that the PM is just being practical. We are not ready to go all electric and will not be untill we have heavily invested in nuclear. Renewables are great but they are not reliable.
If we stop using fossil fuels we have to make enough electricity to do everything that electricity does at the moment plus all cooking, all heating and the power for all vehicles.
This is not entirely true. They are variable in output but predictable over fairly short period. Energy storage can be used to smooth the mismatches
Of course he is. But only the ones with bank accounts in seven figures.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/21/king-charles-addresses-french-voting-chamber-first-for-british-monarchy
His remarks about the existential challenge presented by the climate crisis show how much more sense he has than his apology for a Prime Minister.
Most electric vehicles will be charged overnight when demand is otherwise at its lowest. Octopus (and, I think, others) are already offering tariffs for people with EVs and/or household batteries with half-hour pricing so that people can set when they'll charge up based on price. It will take a bit of getting used to but domestic solar, commercial wind, some storage and some clever management of demand offers a good route forward.
Apart from everything already mentioned; it's thus a pity that his party cancelled nuclear investment programs and didn't invest in new plant for 10 years isn't it.
The tories often seem completely unaware that they've been in government for 13 long, tedious, achievement-less years.
I don't have a EV yet but do have a battery; Octopus allows me to charge that at night for a pittance while buying the excess power from my solar panels during the day at a considerably higher rate.
I have been making a net profit on electricity since about March.
UK generation of nuclear power was around 50% higher in 2010 when Labour left office than it is in 2023, the Conservatives didn't even make provision for plants going off stream.
It's very convenient to put off major change by ten+ (roughly the build time of replacement nuclear plants), especially if your voting base is older voters.
If nuclear is to be part of a push for net zero by 2050 then the UK government needed to have pushed for ground being broken on 2-3 other sites in the 2010-2020 period. Waiting for new technology (eg: small modular reactors) was just kicking the can down the road. The current government, having been in power over that period, carries the responsibility for not doing that - not that there's ever been any indication that the Conservative government has ever considered net zero by 2050 a priority, or even desirable, despite fine words at international meetings (words need to be backed by action - like enforcing efficiency regs for new builds, we could have had every building started since 2015, possibly earlier, requiring practically no extra energy to heat or cool).