Liberty & Livelihood

On Thursday 10th July 1997 120,000 people gathered in Hyde Park for the cause of hunting and the countryside and the Countryside Alliance was born. A Labour Government had just come to power with a commitment to a "free vote on hunting with hounds" and Michael Foster MP's Bill to ban hunting had been introduced to Parliament. This great rally was the first time many of us realised the strength and solidarity of the rural community.

It is easy to forget those days: the fever pitch of the occasion, and most importantly the impact that it made. Our story, and the people who told it, were projected onto the national news agenda in spectacular form, and have never really been off it since.

The subsequent ten years have been littered with important milestones, not all of them positive. Our Government has done little to recognise the true value of rural Britain and, via a mixture of neglect, ignorance and in the case of hunting downright mischief caused widespread unease.
Yesterday's publication of Alastair Campbell's diaries of the Blair years' provided yet more evidence of how badly the Government behaved over the Hunting Act. Campbell records that Peter Mandelson "launched into a big defence of foxhunting", and that, "yet again he (Tony Blair) said he wished we could get out of hunting".

However, as we know principle soon gave way to political practicality and Tony Blair came under pressure from his chief whip Hilary Armstrong who told him that "if he didn't bring back the Hunting Bill for a third reading soon we would not have a hope in hell of winning the foundation hospital vote". Meanwhile Gerald Kaufman MP, behaving with his normal sense of proportion, was telling Campbell that he "would never see himself as a loyal Tony Blair supporter again" if he backtracked on hunting saying: "If the Tony who stood up to Milosevic and bin Laden can't stand up to the Countryside Alliance, I can't support him".

The diaries do not cover the period in 2004 when the decision was made to allow the use of the Parliament Acts to force through the Hunting Bill, but we already know what happened. For all his supposed doubts Tony Blair was not strong enough to stand up to the obsessive MPs who saw hunting as some sort of political football.

It is surely worse to have known that something was wrong and allowed it to happen, than to have made something happen because you were wrong.

But much has been achieved in the last decade which is positive. The rural community is on the political map, and whilst we are some way off commanding the status that minorities should expect, we are now a recognised force with real influence. It is because of this Conservatives are committed to a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act.

That commitment will only come about if we remain as determined in the next five years as we have been in the last ten and continue to target clear objectives with sound arguments.
Most of all the Alliance needs the continued support of all of you: the hundreds of thousands of decent people who have marched and campaigned for liberty, livelihood and the rural way of life.

Thank you for what you have done, for what you are still doing now and for what you will do in the future.

Simon Hart

The more I hear about this film, the more I can't wait to see it.

Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself.

Visit their website for more information and to see where it is showing. I've just booked my ticket at the local Arts Centre!

If you can't get to see the film, then they have also published a book covering the content.

In the latest instalment of our new fortnightly column from John Howarth, Reading Borough Council’s former head of transport and strategic planning, he tackles the subject of the newly-implemented smoking ban and concludes wholeheartedly that it is a good idea.

A few weeks back I returned home late at night. As I opened the taxi door a fox strutted across the drive without a care in the world. In my merry frame of mind I made a mental note to call out the Northcourt Avenue Hunt next morning.

By the time I got to the swimming pool first thing I had remembered that Parliament had banned hunting with dogs. I would have to live and let live after all.

Advertisementyour story continues below
I doubt if the hounds and their undesirable masters would have made it to the university area, and fox hunting always seemed a pretty lame method of vermin control anyway, but as a politician I was never able to raise any enthusiasm for banning hunting. However; many of my colleagues were unreasonably passionate about doing so.

At every level of politics endless requests to support the banning of this that or the other go with the territory. If you can’t actually vote to ‘ban it’ yourself, then you are asked to sign the petition, write the letter, move the resolution, join the campaign or whatever else.

I can recall being asked to help ban, among other things: hunting, hand guns, fishing, fireworks, landmines, chewing gum, raves, bull bars and Brown Sugar by the Rolling Stones (really, I’m not making that up!).

It is all too tempting for politicians to call for whatever to be ‘banned’. It gets an easy headline for starters and makes it look as if you are ‘doing something’. You are sure to find enough zealots, puritans or party-poopers that will support your cause.

That’s fine if you go in for knee-jerk reactions to the latest moral panic or enjoy playing to the gallery, but I think that people should be free to do as they wish so long as it doesn’t damage others – so live and let live.

Even in many cases when harm to others clearly exists, ‘banning it’ proves impractical and makes for poor law. Sincere politicians who understand this don’t really mean ‘ban’, they mean ‘make life more difficult for the scumbags’.

Despite all that, the one ban I support with enthusiasm is the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places. It is a ban we need.

The health evidence is overwhelming. The rights of those who work for their living in pubs, clubs and restaurants deserve respect. As experience in Ireland, Scotland and Wales shows, it is practical and enforceable. In the Reading bars early signs were encouraging; few seemed to mind, good times were still being had.

It is a ban that came about the right way. It was not the decision of Government, but of Parliament on a free vote across party lines.

The Reading MPs, Martin Salter and Rob Wilson both voted for the ban. The evidence suggests that the public approves.

It is a ban that should be respected. In our democracy, whatever our right to protest, we should respect the will of Parliament as it reflects consensus in society. It is a ban that points the right direction. ‘Do what you like in your own home, but behave considerately in public’ sounds like a good principle to me.

We all have something we would ban – I’d outlaw the dreary tunes of Coldplay – but I’ll settle for not having them in my house.

First printed in: Reading Evening Post