- Messages
- 1,774
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Blair and hunting - the truth
Tony Blair's reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his newly published memoir, 'A Journey,' typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is "one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret," but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was "a masterly British compromise" that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed."
To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair's Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate, published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on 'utility' and 'cruelty'. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one's surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government's proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.
The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely turned the Bill back into its original 'licensing' form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael's claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as 'scientifically illiterate' by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.
With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting. Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour 'middle way' resolution.
But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers' agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in The Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.
For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government, Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.
The Daily Telegraph's Matt cartoon, November 2004
The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed". It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not "a masterly British compromise," it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.
Tony Blair's re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the 'middle way' proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.
Tony Blair's reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his newly published memoir, 'A Journey,' typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is "one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret," but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was "a masterly British compromise" that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed."
To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair's Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate, published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on 'utility' and 'cruelty'. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one's surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government's proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.
The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely turned the Bill back into its original 'licensing' form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael's claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as 'scientifically illiterate' by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.
With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting. Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour 'middle way' resolution.
But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers' agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in The Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.
For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government, Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.
The Daily Telegraph's Matt cartoon, November 2004
The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue "provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed". It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not "a masterly British compromise," it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.
Tony Blair's re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the 'middle way' proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.
) 
