"Repeal" of The Hunting Act By Statutory Instrument

[Judgemental]

It appears that the H of C is going to take a decision today, as to whether or not there should be a change to The Hunting Act by the use of a Statutory Instrument.

Those old hands on this board will I hope, give credit when credit is due, to "I told you so" and my inate brilliance. (well somebody has to bang the drum and clap hands)

Perhaps I should apply for CA job but sadly they could not afford my terms.

Herne kindly note. O course I don't expect an apology.

Unfortunately the whole proposal will fail, largely because it is an exercise put forward by a clutch of old Eatonians coupled to Bullington Club members. As a result, the rank and file in the H of C will not trust the proposal for a second. Notwithstanding any whip, or those who are opposed to any sort of change. Irrespective of how many Blue Foxes are on their nocternal perambulations in the corridors and bedrooms of Westminster. My sources indicate that the latter may have the greatest influence in the final analysis.

The sooner 'call me Dave' and his cronies, install men and women of the people in the government, they might achieve something. Irrespective of whether or not they pander to the silver vote or not.

I feel I can do no more than flag up my views as at May of last year.

"Originally Posted by Judgemental
Yes I quite agree Herne that you have been peddling this fudge and fog as to the use of the Statutory Instrument for a number of years and frankly you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

The Statutory Instrument can be used by the Secretary of State for any purpose in the Hunting Act 2004.

For the record, yet again the Act states, as follows. I challange you to tell me where the Statutory Instrument only applies to Exempt Hunting. It a very convienient and misguided 'excuse' to keep peddling Repeal or Nothing.

Subordinate legislation

An order of the Secretary of State under this Act—

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,

(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,

(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,

(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and

(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.

Posted by Herne
Sigh. JM, I have told you this many times before and I will now do so again.

The bit that you have quoted comes from Part 3, Clause 14.

The relevant clause that tells you “where the Statutory Instrument only applies to Exempt Hunting” is in Part 1, Clause 2 (2).

And I quote: The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting. (My underlining)

So, Clause 2(2) says WHAT the SoS can do “by order”. Clause 14 sets out HOW the order can be implemented.

As I have pointed out to you before, if your interpretation of Clause 14 were correct, then Clause 2(2) would be pointless.

Why would Clause 2(2) specify that he could vary a specific bit if Clause 14 then said that he could vary any of it? That would not make sense.

What do you think that Clause 2(2) means or is for under your definition?"

 

[Judgemental]

Reliable sources indicate that The League had one of their loud speaker vans driving around Parliament Square for most of the day, spouting all manner of alarming information.

Why were The Country Side Alliance not similarly represented.

My source said the the majority of MPs had not been briefed on the proposal to use the Statutory Instrument, yet they were being bombarded by their consituents on the subject.

What are the Countryside Alliance doing!

 

[JanetGeorge]

Where did you get the idea that anything was done today?? It's the best kept secret known to man!

 

[Judgemental]

Where did you get the idea that anything was done today?? It's the best kept secret known to man!

I did not suggest anything was done today.

However on page 9 of today's (20/03/14) the Western Daily Press, there is a preport saying amongst other things:

"Both sides of the bitter hunting argument will find out today, whether the government will propose to relax the ban on hunting next Wednesday (26 March 2014), using a normally mundane parliamentary process known as a Stautory Instrument".

If you are serious that it's a secret, that then resonates with the rest of the report that, "it's a devious back door way of repealing the act" to allow in their vernacular 40 (20 couple) of hounds to routinely flush to the gun.

As for it being a secret, my very reliable source in the Palace of Westminster, said their phone was ringing off the hook on the subject and that the League were trumpeting the proposal around Parliament Square all day.

 

[Judgemental]

Furthermore the whole thing has been/will be hijacked by THe Blue Foxes, i.e. the Conservatives who are against hunting.

Judging by the content of their website, they are well informed and of course, the Government Chief Whip is obliged to tell them what is proposed. It may be a Whipped vote but they are not likely to comply.

http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com

Any Midnight vote with half a dozen MP in the House is not a runner.

Whilst I am an advocate of the Statutory Instrument being used, it's dead in the water from the start.

 

[Judgemental]

My sources tell me the whole subject has come to nothing because the Libdems are having none of it and the Blue Foxes are implacable.

The image of the Blue Foxes being Whipped into the government voting lobby is quite exciting/erotic.

 

[fburton]

The image of the Blue Foxes being Whipped into the government voting lobby is quite exciting/erotic.

Hmmm...

 

[Judgemental]

Hunting ban will stay, admits PM: Cameron says Lib Dem resistance means laws to make it easier for farmers to control foxes have been dropped

Cameron rules out changes to ban after opposition from Lib Dems
Prime Minister in favour of giving parliament a free vote on issue
But it is now accepted that there is no prospect of changes before polls
Pro-hunt MPs say the climbdown will cost the Tories at the next election

By James Groves, Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED: 00:48, 27 March 2014 | UPDATED: 00:49, 27 March 2014


Ministers will not try to water down the hunting ban before the election, David Cameron said yesterday.

The Prime Minister said opposition from the Liberal Democrats meant a compromise plan to make it easier for hill farmers to control foxes had been dropped.

Mr Cameron said the decision was a matter of ‘regret’, and Downing Street insisted it remained committed to giving MPs a free vote on repealing the hunt ban ‘when time allows’.
Ministers have ruled out plans to water down the ban on fox hunting before the next election
+3

Ministers have ruled out plans to water down the ban on fox hunting before the next election

But Tory MPs warned the decision would dismay many traditional supporters in the countryside, and could even cost the party seats at the next election.

Pro-hunting umbrella group Vote OK flooded Tory marginals with up to 15,000 volunteers at the last election in the hope of securing a majority in favour of repealing Labour’s ban. Many also campaigned at the 2005 election and at subsequent by-elections.

Tory MP Simon Hart said there was now little prospect of the party attracting similar grassroots support at next year’s General Election.

Mr Hart, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: ‘We need these people. You can have the slickest leaflets in the world but you still need people to go out and deliver them on a wet Wednesday night, and that is something all the parties are struggling with.

‘David Cameron is aware of that, and people recognise he is sympathetic, but the facts of coalition mean he does not have much room for manoeuvre.

‘It will unquestionably have an effect next year in some marginal seats. Those people in rural seats who lose by less than 2,000 votes will be left wondering what might have been if we had been able to do more on hunting.’

But one senior figure in the hunting community said supporters felt betrayed by the lack of Government action on hunting.

‘Our people have had a bellyful,’ he said. ‘We’ve had lots of sympathy and warm words from ministers, but they haven’t actually lifted a finger to help us.’
David Cameron is believed to have been pressured into ruling out changes by the Lib Dems
Pro-hunting MP Simon Hart fears the lack of action on the issue will cost the Conservatives at the next election

David Cameron has been pressured into ruling out changes by the Lib Dems, but pro-hunting MP Simon Hart fears the lack of action on the issue could cost the Conservatives at the next election

Ministers had been considering a call by Welsh hill farmers to relax the hunting ban to help them control foxes.

The change would have allowed farmers to use a pack of dogs to flush a fox from cover before shooting it.

A recent study found that the current limit of using two dogs is ineffective and means foxes are chased for longer.

But the move would require a vote in parliament and the support of both governing parties.

Critics of the plan said it amounted to a lifting of the hunting ban by the back door.

Mr Cameron yesterday told MPs the proposal ‘has been received and is being considered but I regret to say I don’t think there’ll be Government agreement to go forward’.

The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is expected to launch a consultation on the proposals in the coming months, but there is now no prospect of the change being brought in before the election.

Hunt opponents welcomed Mr Cameron’s climbdown. Joe Duckworth, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said: ‘I am delighted that we have flushed out this back door attack on the Hunting Act.

'What they planned would have driven a coach and horses through the Act. I am delighted we have thwarted this plot from a tiny but powerful hunting lobby.’

 

[Alec Swan]

The truth of the matter is relatively simple to understand; NOT ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN cares one jot for hunting, any appeal, or even whether the law is adhered to, or not. That's NOT ONE OF THEM.

Hunting, to every politician is a tightrope, and those who fall will be those who lose votes by making any effort to realistically side with any specific persuasion. 'Placate both sides with the constant application of mealy mouthed ameliorations which achieve absolutely nothing' is the way forward, for them. If you doubt me, just look at the Badger Cull fiasco. Just look at the attempts which were made, attempts which everyone concerned believed to be completely and utterly pointless. Pointless because there would be no achievement, but the appearance of at least an attempt, was made.

Have you ever heard any politician answer a crucial question, with any degree of certainty?

Alec.

 

[canteron]

Sorry, I used to hunt and loved being able to go to amazing places and see amazing things.

Some of the hunts were lovely and friendly, some of them seemed to be fully of half breeds to put it politely. Alex one is your local hunt, I have never met so many people who were up their own behinds.

These people are so naturally objectionable and frankly weird to the majority, they have make it completely impossible for hunting to ever come back, they are just such parades of themselves and if you put them on TV, Tim nice but dim is the only thing that comes to mind. Judgemental, that may or may not be your style, your rant (OK couldn't be bothered to read it, very dull) makes me think that you don't do your cause any good. A more measured approach would get you a lot further.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Some of the hunts were lovely and friendly, some of them seemed to be fully of half breeds to put it politely. Alex one is your local hunt, I have never met so many people who were up their own behinds.

These people are so naturally objectionable and frankly weird to the majority, they have make it completely impossible for hunting to ever come back, they are just such parades of themselves and if you put them on TV, Tim nice but dim is the only thing that comes to mind. Judgemental, that may or may not be your style, your rant (OK couldn't be bothered to read it, very dull) makes me think that you don't do your cause any good. A more measured approach would get you a lot further.

There is a huge cross section to be found in the hunting field, I'll agree. There are those who bray and pass down instructions, there are those who will wait to be asked for advice, there are the thoughtful and kind and then there are those who aren't. It isn't just Hunting, I'm sorry to tell you, it's the world!

I do agree though, and it can often be found in the Hunting field, that there are too great a proportion of old boilers, both of male and female persuasion (and possibly the odd one or two who've yet to decide), and they can make a welcome seem anything but that. It's a pity really, because Hunting is, or should be, for everyone.

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

There is a huge cross section to be found in the hunting field, I'll agree. There are those who bray and pass down instructions, there are those who will wait to be asked for advice, there are the thoughtful and kind and then there are those who aren't. It isn't just Hunting, I'm sorry to tell you, it's the world!

I do agree though, and it can often be found in the Hunting field, that there are too great a proportion of old boilers, both of male and female persuasion (and possibly the odd one or two who've yet to decide), and they can make a welcome seem anything but that. It's a pity really, because Hunting is, or should be, for everyone.

Alec.

Alec I often feel that what your are saying and Canteron is so contributory to the antipathy towards hunting annd has built up over the years.

It's become Totemic for the 'high command' who seem unable to recognise the fundamental fact that having a ban is impossible to undo.

Yes, there could be vote in both Houses of Parliament for repeal but that still leaves a very militant group who are opposed and will become out of control on any hunting day.