Well votes are not yet accepted but I will vote that it is more important than health, education and that Cameron should have a high priority in scrapping the ban seeing as Labour thought it was so important that they should debate the subject for more hours than they gave to debating a war.
They also thought it was such an important subject that they used the Parliament Act to push it through, so if Labour thought it so important why shouldn't the Tories?
I'd vote not as important as the other things but give it a high priority, then replace the hunting act with a sensible law to safeguard animal welfare if their is parliamentary and public appetite for such a law.
It's an issue that can be easily and swiftly resolved.
Definitely not worth 750 hours though as I'm sure you'd agree
Any blatantly unjust law is a liability for any government. It has now been proved to the satisfaction of all but the mentally challenged and extremists that the Hunting Act 2004 was founded on manipulated evidence and prejudice. It has made the lot of foxes much worse in welfare terms and fuelled a bitter resentment in the countryside. Of course it should be repealed within a month of the Tories getting to power, if a new Labour administration haven't done it by then.
The animal 'rights' people have shown us what they are, old -fashioned hate mongers. Modern Britain is no place for them, and they should be cut out of our society with diligent ruthlessness.
Unfortunately if Cameron gets in Blair and his idiots have left important things like defence health and education in such a terrible tate that a lot of time is going to have to be spent sorting that out. If a bill to repeal the Hunting Act can go through quickly then it should,if not it should be left until there is time. Just becouse something is law it only matteres if it is vigorously enforced and if the will to enforse it is no longer there then it will cease to be very relevant.
Well, sharp intake of breath needed there ! I'd love to write the headlines in the anti-hunting press for an article based on your coments. 'Huntsmen say they are more important than the NHS'.
I'm hoping that she didn't really mean that hunting was more important than the health service, education and national security. Perhaps it was a silly hunter's joke.
I think to be fait it would be possible to prioritise getting rid of the Hunting Act because it would only take a one line bill and if the political will was there, only a few hours of parliamentary time.
Getting proper cruelty-based legislation might take a little longer, however I think it would be worth it.
There is a strong argument for having some sort of legislation on hunting. It's both wrong and highly unimaginative for people to pretend that there were only two choices between a total ban or no law at all.