Simon Hart on the anniversary of the Hunting Act
Simon Hart | 17.02.2006 07:27 | History
To outsiders the impression is that nothing has changed. To those closest to the action however the changes have been fundamental and have caused enormous difficulties, even if they have not been terminal as some feared.
First it is worth looking at the media’s verdict – a good test of the public mood. Condemnation of the Act has been almost universal with only the Daily Mirror, amongst national newspapers, supporting it. Two of the most powerful editorials came at the beginning of the season and just last week.
In November the Independent, which in years past had been far from supportive of hunting, christened the Hunting Act ‘Blair’s Folly’ and concluded: “A badly drafted and illiberal law is now resented and ignored in equal measure. The Hunting Act has become a tragic symbol of the follies of the Blair era”.
And last week the Sunday Times published an even more scathing editorial. ‘Bit of a fix for the fox’ took the debate on the Hunting Act one stage further declaring: “such a bad law has no right to survive and it would be better to get rid of it”.
Secondly, public opinion has also condemned the legislation. 63% think the Hunting Act is not working, and for the first time even the antis' own pollsters, MORI, are recording no majority of support for a ban.
Thirdly, political attitudes are changing. Ministers avoid discussing the issue like the plague. DEFRA says it has no plans to monitor the impact of the Hunting Act and that it is now a Home Office issue. The Home Office points back at DEFRA. The Prime Minister seems to think that we have reached a “sensible compromise”. Presumably he means that the legislation is so flawed that nobody is happy. The Conservatives remain steadfast in their commitment to a free vote to repeal or replace the Act, and at least two of the three Lib Dem leadership contenders opposed it.
It is also interesting to note the views of some of the many ex-antis who have changed their minds on hunting as recorded in this week's Horse and Hound.
I do not underestimate the distress and difficulty the Act has caused to people across the country, but there is much we should be proud of over the last 12 months. The hunting community has proved itself resilient, adaptable and united and the Hunting Act is being comprehensively dismantled as a result. It is now lame duck legislation, awaiting a sensible administration to put it out of its misery. Our role now is to ensure that happens as quickly as possible, and that as many hunts as possible survive to see that day.
First it is worth looking at the media’s verdict – a good test of the public mood. Condemnation of the Act has been almost universal with only the Daily Mirror, amongst national newspapers, supporting it. Two of the most powerful editorials came at the beginning of the season and just last week.
In November the Independent, which in years past had been far from supportive of hunting, christened the Hunting Act ‘Blair’s Folly’ and concluded: “A badly drafted and illiberal law is now resented and ignored in equal measure. The Hunting Act has become a tragic symbol of the follies of the Blair era”.
And last week the Sunday Times published an even more scathing editorial. ‘Bit of a fix for the fox’ took the debate on the Hunting Act one stage further declaring: “such a bad law has no right to survive and it would be better to get rid of it”.
Secondly, public opinion has also condemned the legislation. 63% think the Hunting Act is not working, and for the first time even the antis' own pollsters, MORI, are recording no majority of support for a ban.
Thirdly, political attitudes are changing. Ministers avoid discussing the issue like the plague. DEFRA says it has no plans to monitor the impact of the Hunting Act and that it is now a Home Office issue. The Home Office points back at DEFRA. The Prime Minister seems to think that we have reached a “sensible compromise”. Presumably he means that the legislation is so flawed that nobody is happy. The Conservatives remain steadfast in their commitment to a free vote to repeal or replace the Act, and at least two of the three Lib Dem leadership contenders opposed it.
It is also interesting to note the views of some of the many ex-antis who have changed their minds on hunting as recorded in this week's Horse and Hound.
I do not underestimate the distress and difficulty the Act has caused to people across the country, but there is much we should be proud of over the last 12 months. The hunting community has proved itself resilient, adaptable and united and the Hunting Act is being comprehensively dismantled as a result. It is now lame duck legislation, awaiting a sensible administration to put it out of its misery. Our role now is to ensure that happens as quickly as possible, and that as many hunts as possible survive to see that day.
Simon Hart