[neverdem]

Some political commentators believe the overwhelming ``yes" vote had a deeply political motive - to revenge Margaret Thatcher's treatment of the miners 20 years ago.

What does that statement mean, just to exercise power for its own sake to aggravate the opposition?

[tjwmason]

What does that statement mean, just to exercise power for its own sake to aggravate the opposition?

Do you know the history of the miners' strike in the early '80s?

Basically, the National Union of Mineworkers (N.U.M.) was controlled by a hard-line Marxist (at one point it was being funded by Libya), who refused to allow any mine closures. The mines were all government owned, and mostly totally un-economical. This was also at a time when the Trades Union movement was very strong. The miners had effectively brought down the pseudo-Conservative government of Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath in 1974; and they tried it again. Lady Thatcher (as she is now), refused to move, and there was a long campaign lasting about a year, during which the miners pretty much tried to start a civil war. Thatcher won, and it became a cause celebre of the hard-left.

Hunting is seen as a sport for 'toffs' because it uses old traditions, and because most 'toffs' hunt (though most hunters are far from being 'toffs'). Thus the left see the ban as part of the class-war (they really do still think in such terms).

Thus it is not so much exercising power for its own sake, but showing that they (the 'workers', or some similar nonsense appellation) hold the power now, and can use it to attack those who attacked them (as they see it).