Why the hunting ban must stay in place
Dear David Cameron,
When I recently wrote a letter to William Hague on the subject of foxhunting, it provoked one of the fiercest debates ever seen on this blog. Although both sides of the debate were equally adamant, the one thing that brought them together was the belief that the Hunting Act introduced by Tony Blair was a farce. However, despite agreeing with this, I am urging you today not to repeal the Hunting Act.
Countryside campaigners fear that you are close to reneging on a promise you made last year to throw the full weight of a future government behind repealing the Hunting Act, which made it illegal to hunt with dogs. Senior Tory figures have said that a change in party policy is under active consideration as they fear that a new Conservative government could find itself bogged down in Parliament if it tried to force through the legislation, but the suggestion of a change in policy has caused deep concern among pro-hunt campaigners. Hunt supporters have been pouring into marginal seats to help Conservative candidates. Many could withdraw their support if they do not believe the Conservative leader is fully committed to a bill that will work. When an aide of Mr Cameron hinted to journalists last year that hunting would not be a priority, several major donors threatened to withdraw millions of pounds of party funding. It is thought that the shadow cabinet is considering using a private member’s bill instead of a government bill to overthrow the ban but campaigners fear that the bill could be vulnerable to wrecking amendments from anti-hunt campaigners and could run out of time. Nick Herbert, the shadow environment secretary, said: “We are working up various options about how we will do repeal. We will give time for a vote on repeal but we have also said we don’t intend to waste parliamentary time on this. We haven’t said what form repeal would take in terms of a bill. …I don’t think it is sensible to rule out options.” Mr Herbert said it was unlikely that the manifesto would spell out how the bill would be piloted and would simply repeat the pledge to offer MPs “a free vote”.
Although pro-hunt campaigners may be getting a bit jittery, they are wrong to start threatening you. On this blog I have made no secret of my hatred of hunting with dogs but the issue of repealing the Hunting Act goes far beyond my personal opinion. The importance of keeping the Hunting Act in place was amply demonstrated in your speech to the Conservative Party last week. You showed the British public in no uncertain terms that the Conservatives give a damn about everyone in society, not just a select few. You showed that topics which Conservatives would never have emphasised in the past – poverty, the NHS, international aid, a 50% tax rate, the environment - are very much part of your plan. You showed that topics which have crippled the Conservatives in recent years – tax cuts and Europe - are not part of the agenda (for now at least). Whether or not all of these issues, taken individually, are the correct choice is irrelevant over the next seven months. For example, there is good reason to think that the 50% tax rate is a complete waste of time, but it is absolutely right to support it and show the voters that you are serious about us all being in this together. The Hunting Act is no different. There are two reasons why it must stay: firstly, if a Conservative Prime Minister wastes his government’s time on talking about hunting when our economy is on life support then the public will be singularly unamused; and secondly, the last thing that a Conservative government should do after winning an election is give Labour a reason to focus and rally the troops, as a crushing defeat in 2010 could and should finish them for at least one Parliamentary term, if not two.
Private member’s bills can be pushed through the normal Parliamentary channels if a government wishes to support it, but I still think even raising the issue is a bad mistake. You and George Osborne stand to inherit the worst economic mess since World War II, as you reminded us on many occasions last week, and I think it would politically suicidal to suddenly start talking about foxhunting at a time when many people’s jobs and livelihoods will still be on the line. Maybe our economic woes will have lessened within a few years, maybe they won’t. Either way, the moment that a Conservative MP mentions foxhunting during the first term of a Conservative government, your compassionate conservatism project risks being shattered.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Agree entirerly!
“For example, there is good reason to think that the 50% tax rate is a complete waste of time, but it is absolutely right to support it and show the voters that you are serious about us all being in this together. “
Yes! That’s what we need – gesture politics, not ones that actually have an effect, ones that play well in the media! That’s the way to rekindle faith in the political process!
/sarc
If you listened to his speech at the conference you will have worked out his position – which is that he wants to repeal it but its a question of priorities – nuff said.
Cameron promised that he would bring forward a Government bill to repeal the Hunting Act. Now he is backtracking. If he can’t be trusted on hunting, what can he be trusted on. If the Tories cannot promise to push through a repeal quickly then they can expect problems in marginal seats – i.e. a huge reduction in the number of activists! Vote OK could turn off the tap just like that. Wouldn’t that be pretty stupid of the Tories?
I agree with you. I think the foxhunting law should be treated the same as many other laws which are not enforced (eg the requirement for a taxi to keep a bale of hay in the boot for the horse – assuming that one is STILL not repealed).
Julia, ignoring the Hunting Act wouldn’t be gesture politics – it would be common sense in the face of the crippling economic crisis that we will have to face for years to come.
Alastair, I’m sure Cameron does want to repeal it, but it sounds as though the pro-hunting lobby won’t settle for anything less than an immediate government bill – which is ridiculous.
DB, I take your point that Cameron might be reversing a previous commitment but if you were faced with the biggest budget deficit since the war and a debt burden that is increasing by £175 billion a year, do you really think that it is even remotely appropriate to discuss hunting? Cameron has got this one spot on – the hunting repeal can wait, dealing with our financial nightmare cannot.
Boudicca, you’re right that the legislation is unforceable right now – no-one wants the current situation to continue, regardless of what they think about hunting. Even so, the time and place for a proper parliamentary debate is years away, in my opinion.
Julia, lets just look at priorities should the govt change tomorrow. In order, at every stage, ask which is more deserving of Parliamentary time.
The national debt or Hunting?
The plunging currency or Hunting?
Welfare reform or Hunting?
The Database State or Hunting?
The Lisbon Treaty or Hunting?
The Education system or Hunting?
The Health Service or Hunting?
Armed forces procurement or Hunting?
…
and on and on and on.
To talk about Hunting before all of those issues have been resolved (and the rest) would be gesture politics of the highest order – a gesture to the ‘old guard’ that its back to business as usual – and a betrayal of the national interest.
“Julia, ignoring the Hunting Act wouldn’t be gesture politics – it would be common sense in the face of the crippling economic crisis that we will have to face for years to come.”
If they’ll break election pledges on this, how is anyone to trust them on election pledges made about the economic situation?
“Julia, lets just look at priorities should the govt change tomorrow. “
You forget, Shaun, that the government doesn’t ‘change’. The government is elected. In order to elect them, people have to want to vote for them.
Why would I want to vote for people who say ‘I’ll do x’ and then say ‘Ah, well, the time isn’t right, I’ve other priorities, etc…’
Either the Hunting Bill is illiberal or it isn’t. If it isn’t, don’t promise repeal. If it is, then do as you promised.
@JuliaM – “If it is, then do as you promised.”
Fair enough, when you put it like that. I would, I suppose, point out that when the promise was made, the economy hadn’t collapsed, we we’re printing money while the currency went through the floor and we hadn’t been betrayed by Labour over Lisbon and as such, priorities must change along with the much altered flow of events.
But then, I concede, that kind of thing can justify more or less anything.
So I don’t know. Yes, I suppose, in a principled world the illegitimate and illiberal should be repealed and Dave should keep his word. But then these are politicians we’re talking about and time and resources are scarce so prioritisation will occur – indeed, its arguably irresponsible if it does not.
It will take very little Parliamentary time to pass a one line bill. “This House resolves to repeal the Hunting Act”
End of story.
I think they should repeal the law while they still have the power to do so.
I’m not sure that it should be top of his list – that should be the emergency Budget.
However, a Queen’s Speech including the “Restoration of Liberties” bill – abolishing ID cards, limiting funding on speed cameras, repealing the 42 day bill, and repealing the fox hunting bill, etc.
Agree that it should not be done on its own – but as part of an overall philosophical statement it seems pretty compelling
Don’t go near it.
Tony Blair spent 6 years dancing around this contentious issue and even he couldn’t get agreement.
The Tories will have far more than they can deal with without dragging up this issue.
Julia, you’re right in the sense that it doesn’t inspire confidence when politicians backtrack, but I really think the collapse of the entire world’s financial system is about as good an excuse for backtracking as you’re ever likely to see.
Genuine Tory, not sure it’s quite THAT fast…. Even a Private Member’s Bill will need airtime in the Commons, which could spark an almighty barrage of bad press for the Conservatives for all sorts of reasons.
BS, maybe it will come in the second term or late in the first term of a Conservative government, but in the big scheme of things it simply has to wait.
Charles, nice perspective, hadn’t thought about it like that. I, like Bill Quango, still think it will be a disaster from the moment that a Conservative MP mentions it.
Is A. Tory a tory?
Fine, it’s not a priority. For me it must be a first term goal. But I think you contradict yourself.
“You showed the British public in no uncertain terms that the Conservatives give a damn about everyone in society, not just a select few.”
If the hunting repeal isn’t pursued it will show that Cameron DOES NOT give a damn about everyone in society. He will sacrifice a major part of the the rural agenda to a select few city dwellers who have no idea about rural life – exactly what Labour is all about. And he will lose a lot of people who were there for the party over the last decade when it was sucking air through a straw. There is no doubt that if they renege on this, I and many others will withhold our time, money and put our vote firmly in the undecided box.
Cameron should leave it well alone. There is still a way to go to detox the ‘brand’ and the image of country pursuits. It will rake up the ‘class’ thing at the worst possible time.
I give a small example: a fresher at a middle-ranking uni, asked if he could handle a gun when he applied to join the clay-pigeon club, replied in accents of disdain ‘My father has just bought a 300 acre shoot. Does that answer your question?’. The third year students who run the club were appalled.
Rightly or wrongly, the arrogant student (and his family) is associated with the Conservative Party and this ‘Rah’ attitude is a huge turn-off for floating voters.
The Ban is dying on its feet – just leave it alone. There are far more important fronts to open and battles to fight. It really is not worth the political risk.
Sejan, yes. Any other questions?
Doug, I take your point but I was referring more to the perception that hunting is undertaken by a few rich country dwellers, which I hope you accept is a long way divorced from the lives that many people live. That is not to say that something should be ignored just because a lot of voters don’t understand it, but my belief that the hunting act should be put to one side for the time being is more to do with electoral strategy than the precise rights and wrongs of the legislation.
Pharbitis, Cameron understood the need to ‘detox’ the Conservative brand from the moment he took over as leader and he has undoubtedly done a stunning job. If he throws in the towel now and goes back to traditionally right-of-centre concerns, all his hard work will go up in smoke.
Sorry, don’t agree. Once I’m in charge the hunting ban* will go the same way as the smoking ban, traffic lights, the war on drugs, restrictions on prostitution etc etc, i.e. straight in the bin.
* I personally find fox hunting silly and barbaric. So what? It doesn’t do anybody any harm, and that is the key to all this.
“You showed the British public in no uncertain terms that the Conservatives give a damn about everyone in society, not just a select few”
Since when did foxes become a part of society?
I really, really like the idea of a great repeal (*cough* Reform) bill.
ID cards, the RIPA powers to Councils, Smoking Ban, Tax Credits, Hunting, Lisbon….
Ooh I think I just made a mess in my pants *without* the visual aids MR Smith had his wife claim for on expenses (Yes, that’s back. Fear it, troughers!). The idea of binning the atrocious spewing output of a government with legislative Diahorrea does really appeal…
My fear is that once in government, Dave and his juniors will decide that power is nice, knowledge is power and finding out what bin I put my dog poop in is *just* the data that they need to, uh, balance the economy…
Elby – You must have forgotten Samantha’s.
When we have ‘feral’ youth gangs acting like ‘animals’ attacking people in the streets, when we have ‘vermin’ in our criminal justice and welfare systems and ‘parasite’ phoney asylum seekers, I suspect that as conservatives, we should be backing the entrepreneurial spirit of the Fox, especially the much maligned Urban Fox, who does such sterling work to empty the bins and clean the streets of takeaway refuse in town centers across the land. In the absence of weekly refuse collection in many areas, these plucky little animals have barked and screeched their way into our communities, dodging (sometimes) the wheels of our vehicals in order to literally eat our waste lest we drown in our own feculence.
So lets hear it for the fox! Clearly a more productive member of ’society’ than your average NEET, I’d wager!
Frankly, I’m surprised that they are not unionised! I mean, unlike the binmen, they don’t demand tips at Christmas!
I think the Hunting Act is a little bit different to the 50% tax rate. Same emotion, different set of circumstances.
…if a Conservative Prime Minister wastes his government’s time on talking about hunting when our economy is on life support then the public will be singularly unamused…
That, for me, is the killer argument. Go for the quick wins first, then move on to more contentious issues later.
Toryism wears hunting pink. “A Tory” is therefore a misnomer. LFAT’s therefore a ‘conservative’. I think he should change the name of this blog to “letters from a Conservative”
Renege on the scrapping of the hunting act? Next thing you’ll be doing is questioning the Union or disliking Gin or something equally socialist and vile.
Doesn’t it all depend on how a big a Conservative majority there is at the next election? I saw a prediction yesterday of well over 400 Tory MPs, with a majority of 200 or so. Given that sort of majority, Cameron could do anything he likes. If he doesn’t get that sort of majority, he can’t.
Personally I think that, while the hunting ban is an older political issue, the smoking ban is a greater issue. The hunting ban only affected the small minority of people who like to ride around on horses chasing foxes. The smoking ban affected millions of people.
Really what needs to happen is for the angry hunting community to team up with the angry smoking community. And with the angry global warming sceptical community as well. There’s barely a cigarette paper between any of them. Or maybe a horse’s neck. Or even a breath of carbon dioxide.
Smoking beagles of the world unite!
I agree with whoever said that a raft of repeals should be put into one bill, which could then be Important Business of Government rather than simply ‘hunting’.
The reason for repealing the ‘Hunting with Dogs’ Act is a very simple one. It’s a useless and vindictive piece of legislation which neither achieves what it is supposed to or has any real intent in regards to animal welfare.
The only reason for this bill was as a sop to ther Labour Left, who (as they mostly dwell in cities), saw it as purely as a rod to beat the wealthy countryside with.
That said, I can understand very well the tactical reasons for leaving it to one side while other more pressing issues are at hand.
I strongly disagree with you! Depicting the fox hunting ban as something that is fair for everybody and not just the elite is completely ludicrous! In fact, without fox hunting, the ordinary population of the countryside will suffer from increased losses of poultry! The assumption that government should only focus on the economy and the budget is also a gross underestimation of what the government is capable of… It isn’t too much to ask from a government to introduce more than one piece of legislation every five years I reckon. Furthermore, many people seem to forget that it isn’t at all clear whether the majority of the public wants any ban on fox hunting, given the number of volunteers in marginals, I suspect the opposite even.
Shaun Pilkington: October 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm:
“I really, really like the idea of a great repeal (*cough* Reform) bill.
ID cards, the RIPA powers to Councils, Smoking Ban, Tax Credits, Hunting, Lisbon…. ”
You can add to the list of laws to be repealed: the soon to be introduced curbs on striptease/lapdancing. A badly written, vindictive piece of legislation lobbied by the tax-payer funded anti-anything I don’t like brigade.
LFAT – erm….. that was the point I was making….
I know, I was agreeing with you and expanding my own point a bit!!! Apologies for the confusion.
[...] Letters From A Tory goes against the party line on fox hunting [...]
If hunt suppporters want to ensure their sport survives, they’d be best campaigning for the current ineffective law to stay on the statute book.
if the hunting act is repealed, i am quite sure the next labour government, however far that may be in the future, will be forced by its MPs to introduce a rather better written piece of legislation that actually ensures hunting is banned. hunting is the easiest bit of red meat for any labour government to chuck to those on the left: why tackle the bankers in the city when you can bait ‘toffs’ on horseback!
meanwhile, it is time the right wing of the conservative party started concentrating on real issues, rather than charging at windmills and wallowing in ninety eighties nostalgia. don’t be as shortsighted as the left wingers are in the labour party.
It is a particularly perverse individual who joins a party where many of the members have a great deal of knowledge on a subject,such as hunting, and despite a complete lack of knowledge on the individuals part, pompously decrees the other members must be wrong.
Still, with such luminaries as arsonist mike watson and morgage fraudster elliot morley for company, you clearly know best.
If you are an anti be an anti – say you don’t like hunting, support the HA and go and join an illiberal party like Labour. If you are a tory (some hope) don’t try and hide your prejudice with piss poor arguments like this. Facts:
1) Governments can do more than one thing at once.
2) Repealing the HA would be a no cost, arguably cost saving exercise. You can argue that policemen are best deployed trying to work out whether hunting is legal or not. I’m not going to.
3) Repealing the HA need take only one day in the Commons. The HA was driven through in one day in Sept 2004.
4) Hunting has always been a free vote issue and so will repeal. It will be supported by MPs of every party.
There will be no serious opposition to repeal because only the idiotic and insane (i.e. Kevin Maguire) think it is a law worth keeping. Every paper bar the Mirror thought that passing it was wrong, and mosthave continued to codemn it since. Who is going to criticise the Conservatives for repealing the HA? Simon Jenkins, Polly Toynbee, the Indy, the Observer, the Times? None of them because they all opposed it in the first place.
This is now a matter if trust and trust is a far more potent political force than foxes.
“We have a very clear position on this, there will be a free vote, and if there is a vote to repeal the hunting ban there will be a government Bill in government time.” David Cameron 19th February 2008
Oscar
All tory supporters should say, “Yes we will vote for you, on condition that when you are in power, you bring back hunting with dogs, and bring back pistol shooting, there are more people wanting these things to happen than would vote for them to remain on the book”
I have not voted since 1992, as I was / still am a pistol shooter, If the conservatives want votes they must realise who votes for them!
LFAT,
The argument which you and some other commentators have written are slightly flawed in my opinion. It is not just about the fox-hunting.
I would want to see the next government go through ALL the parlimentary acts that have been forced upon me and to repeal ALL the ones that infringe my liberty unless there is a health issue (such as the HSE Act etc) involved in it. I wish to see multiple acts repealed (including the bail of hay in a taxi!) and they could do it just prior to the quango bonfire!
@Scott Speight – That was before I read the bottom section of the comments and see that they have said pretty much what I did. Apologies! :S