THE Government’s plans for a ‘new homes bonus’ will cause council tax chaos and annihilate George Osborne’s promise of a council tax freeze.
The scheme, planned by the Conservatives before the Election and confirmed in August, promises to match council tax raised on every new home built for six years. But money paid to councils under the scheme will be cut from the total local government grant.
The cost in the first year is an estimated £250million. I have discovered that Derby would lose over £1m in the first year alone, rising to more than £22.5m over six years.
There would have to be 1,285 homes built each and every year in Derby just stop the council losing money under this flawed scheme.
Big towns and cities like Derby across the country will be especially hard hit, as they stand to lose the most from their grant funding, and often have the least available space on which to build.
This incentive scheme hasn’t been thought through. It will do nothing to build new homes and Derby people will be left facing even deeper cuts to public services, and higher council tax bills.
The ConDem Government should be offering a genuine incentive and planning system to build homes, rather than promoting this con-trick that will actually cut housing investment around the country.
Speaking in Manchester at the Labour conference of Friday, shadow housing minister, John Healey said: “Those councils that see new homes built will win but those that won’t or can’t build will lose out, and lose big. This scheme robs some councils to pay others.”
He added: “The Government is right to want a strong incentive system for councils and communities ready to see new homes built. But this isn’t it.”
Thursday 30 September 2010
Saturday 18 September 2010
CONDEM COALITION MOVE TO CULL BADGERS
Not content with demolishing public services, attacking the poor and undermining economic recovery, the ConDem coalition has now turned its attention to the country’s badger population. It is planning a badger cull on the pretext of tackling bovine tuberculosis (BTB).
BTB is a terrible disease, endemic to cattle in the UK with hotspots in the South West and West Midlands. The risk of transmission is so great that all animals in a herd found to have the disease are slaughtered and movement controls imposed around the farm. This means that finding BTB in a herd can have a serious impact on a farm’s profitability and viability as a business.
The Labour Government was determined to make progress towards eradicating bovine TB, not least because of the serious impact it has on farmers and their families, but not by culling badgers.
Key to the decision to end badger culling was the report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) which said: “badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB”. The method preferred by the previous Labour government was to vaccinate cattle and badgers against BTB.
But the outcome of the general election has seen the ConDem coalition turn the clock back. The Coalition Agreement stated that the Government would bring forward a package of “badger control” measures to bring BTB under control.
Then at the end of June, the Government halted five of the six pilots for an injectable badger vaccine.
Even though the latest figures show a fall of 25% in BTB in cattle in the first three months of the year the ConDem coalition government is consulting on a badger cull.
No new evidence has come forward to contradict the views of the ISG that a badger cull would not meaningfully contribute to the eradication of BTB and, in fact, it could make it worse.
Labour’s shadow DEFRA minister, Hilary Benn, says
"This is the wrong decision. Bovine TB is a terrible disease that we must overcome, but we have to use means that will work.
“Bovine TB has a devastating effect on farmers' herds and their livelihoods, and I understand how desperate those affected are for something more to be done. But badger culling has already been tried. Based on these trials, the Independent Scientific Group concluded that ‘badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB.’
“As Secretary of State, I agreed with this scientific judgement. It would be neither practical nor publicly acceptable, and getting it wrong could actually make matters worse.
“Shooting badgers may make ministers feel that they are doing something, but it is not the way to beat this disease. Vaccination is, which is why cancelling five of the six vaccine demonstration projects was such a mistake."
BTB is a terrible disease, endemic to cattle in the UK with hotspots in the South West and West Midlands. The risk of transmission is so great that all animals in a herd found to have the disease are slaughtered and movement controls imposed around the farm. This means that finding BTB in a herd can have a serious impact on a farm’s profitability and viability as a business.
The Labour Government was determined to make progress towards eradicating bovine TB, not least because of the serious impact it has on farmers and their families, but not by culling badgers.
Key to the decision to end badger culling was the report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) which said: “badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB”. The method preferred by the previous Labour government was to vaccinate cattle and badgers against BTB.
But the outcome of the general election has seen the ConDem coalition turn the clock back. The Coalition Agreement stated that the Government would bring forward a package of “badger control” measures to bring BTB under control.
Then at the end of June, the Government halted five of the six pilots for an injectable badger vaccine.
Even though the latest figures show a fall of 25% in BTB in cattle in the first three months of the year the ConDem coalition government is consulting on a badger cull.
No new evidence has come forward to contradict the views of the ISG that a badger cull would not meaningfully contribute to the eradication of BTB and, in fact, it could make it worse.
Labour’s shadow DEFRA minister, Hilary Benn, says
"This is the wrong decision. Bovine TB is a terrible disease that we must overcome, but we have to use means that will work.
“Bovine TB has a devastating effect on farmers' herds and their livelihoods, and I understand how desperate those affected are for something more to be done. But badger culling has already been tried. Based on these trials, the Independent Scientific Group concluded that ‘badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB.’
“As Secretary of State, I agreed with this scientific judgement. It would be neither practical nor publicly acceptable, and getting it wrong could actually make matters worse.
“Shooting badgers may make ministers feel that they are doing something, but it is not the way to beat this disease. Vaccination is, which is why cancelling five of the six vaccine demonstration projects was such a mistake."
Thursday 16 September 2010
LABOUR CALLS ON GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Labour has this week launched a bid to protect local neighbourhoods from planning changes that will allow bad landlords to takeover residential communities and fill them with temporary bedsits.
I have signed two motions in the House of Commons today calling on Housing Minister Grant Shapps not to repeal changes to the planning legislation requiring all Houses in Multiple Occupation to have planning permission. The changes, which would otherwise have passed unopposed, will now be debated.
Under changes to the law brought in by the Labour Government in January, local authorities were given new powers to make private landlords converting family homes into shared houses apply for planning permission. The new Housing Minister last week laid down new regulations, which if they remain unchallenged, will mean the repeal of this legislation.
Two Early Day Motions laid down by Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the Opposition, and Shadow Housing Minister John Healey call on the Government to annul the new regulations.
The Government’s plans will tie the hands of councils preventing them from controlling the spread of bedsit barons.
In Derby there are serious consequences to the unregulated proliferation of HMOs. Not only do these large shared houses pose major problems for residents in terms of noise, parking and rubbish collection, but unsuitable conversions also mean that many students and low-paid workers have to live in cramped, poorly maintained and often unhealthy or even dangerous homes.
Dr Richard Tyler, Coordinator of the National HMO Lobby, which represents Residents’ Associations across the UK welcomed the EDM, saying: “The National HMO Lobby received assurances from the Government prior to the election that the legislation would remain intact, and we are deeply concerned at the effect new proposals will have on communities.
“Un-managed concentrations of HMOs de-stabilise local communities, and make it even harder to address the problems they cause for residents and tenants alike.”
The Government’s attempt to repeal new planning legislation follows hard on the heels of their decision in June to scrap the National Register of Landlords, which allowed tenants to make basic checks on prospective landlords and local authorities to better enforce lettings rules, the legal requirement for a written tenancy agreement, and the regulation of letting and management agents. All of these pieces of legislation were brought in earlier this year by the Labour Government to protect tenants and communities from rogue landlords.
This is yet another example of the disastrous legislative programme being pursued by the ConDem coalition and demonstrates how unfit they are to govern this country.
I have signed two motions in the House of Commons today calling on Housing Minister Grant Shapps not to repeal changes to the planning legislation requiring all Houses in Multiple Occupation to have planning permission. The changes, which would otherwise have passed unopposed, will now be debated.
Under changes to the law brought in by the Labour Government in January, local authorities were given new powers to make private landlords converting family homes into shared houses apply for planning permission. The new Housing Minister last week laid down new regulations, which if they remain unchallenged, will mean the repeal of this legislation.
Two Early Day Motions laid down by Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the Opposition, and Shadow Housing Minister John Healey call on the Government to annul the new regulations.
The Government’s plans will tie the hands of councils preventing them from controlling the spread of bedsit barons.
In Derby there are serious consequences to the unregulated proliferation of HMOs. Not only do these large shared houses pose major problems for residents in terms of noise, parking and rubbish collection, but unsuitable conversions also mean that many students and low-paid workers have to live in cramped, poorly maintained and often unhealthy or even dangerous homes.
Dr Richard Tyler, Coordinator of the National HMO Lobby, which represents Residents’ Associations across the UK welcomed the EDM, saying: “The National HMO Lobby received assurances from the Government prior to the election that the legislation would remain intact, and we are deeply concerned at the effect new proposals will have on communities.
“Un-managed concentrations of HMOs de-stabilise local communities, and make it even harder to address the problems they cause for residents and tenants alike.”
The Government’s attempt to repeal new planning legislation follows hard on the heels of their decision in June to scrap the National Register of Landlords, which allowed tenants to make basic checks on prospective landlords and local authorities to better enforce lettings rules, the legal requirement for a written tenancy agreement, and the regulation of letting and management agents. All of these pieces of legislation were brought in earlier this year by the Labour Government to protect tenants and communities from rogue landlords.
This is yet another example of the disastrous legislative programme being pursued by the ConDem coalition and demonstrates how unfit they are to govern this country.
Tuesday 14 September 2010
TORIES LAUNCH ATTACK ON THE UNEMPLOYED
The ConDem coalition government announced on Thursday that it will cut £4bn from out-of-work benefits.
Additionally, a leaked letter revealed by the Observer on Sunday showed that the government has agreed to cut £2.5 billion from Employment Support Allowance. This is the relevant extract:
“Given the pressure on overall public spending in the coming period, we will need to continue developing further options to reform the benefits as part of the spending review process in order to deliver further savings, greater simplicity and stronger work incentives. Reform to the Employment Support Allowance is a particular priority and I am pleased that you, the Prime Minister, and I have agreed to press ahead with reforms to the ESA as part of the spending review that deliver net savings of at least £2.5 billion by 2014/15.”
Chancellor to SoS DWP, 19 June 2010, copied to PM, Deputy PM, SoS CLG, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
These cuts are in addition to the £11 billion cuts in the Budget, which already hit the poorest harder than the rich, women much harder than men, and children and pensioners harder than everyone else. Now the Government is clearly targeting people it agrees are genuinely too sick or disabled to work.
The government told the BBC on Thursday that it would cut £4 billion from out of work benefits.
The government gave no detail about where the £4 billion cuts would fall. There are five million people claim out-of-work benefits, meaning that if the cuts are applied uniformly each claimant would lose an average of £800 per year.
The government’s measures will do nothing to get more people into work if there are no jobs for people to go into, and when the government is cutting support for jobs.
A leaked letter from George Osborne to Iain Duncan-Smith set out a secret agreement to cut an additional £2.5bn from reforms to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) as part of the Spending Review.
The £2.5 billion cut to Employment Support Allowance will hit only those people that the government has already assessed – through the work capability assessment – to be genuinely too sick or disabled to work.
They are on top of savings already built into Treasury plans based on the anticipated results of work capability assessments, where around two-thirds of people so far tested have been found fit to work.
If these cuts are made uniformly, each claimant would lose an average of around £1,000.
This gives the lie to government claims that welfare reforms will tackle worklessness and protect the vulnerable.
The June Budget Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) report showed that budget reduced growth and increased unemployment compared to the pre-budget OBR - cutting jobs and putting more people on benefits.
The government scrapped the Young Person’s Guarantee of a job, training or work experience for all young people who are 6 months unemployed – and the Future Jobs Fund.
The last Labour Govt was making huge savings by getting more people than expected into work. Labour had set out plans to save £20bn over 4 years through getting more people into work – through:
• unemployment being 500,000 lower than expected due to Labour policies
• testing people on ESA/IB to ensure those who can work are expected to do so
• increasing the number of lone parents in employment
• introducing tough conditions on people who refused to work, and strong requirements on jobseekers
• bringing in the Young Person’s Guarantee and the Future Jobs Fund
The Tories, aided and abetted by the supine Liberal Democrats, are still the same old nasty Tory party of old. George Osborne’s rhetoric about living on benefits as a “lifestyle choice” is a smokescreen to hide vicious cuts on the poorest people in society.
Additionally, a leaked letter revealed by the Observer on Sunday showed that the government has agreed to cut £2.5 billion from Employment Support Allowance. This is the relevant extract:
“Given the pressure on overall public spending in the coming period, we will need to continue developing further options to reform the benefits as part of the spending review process in order to deliver further savings, greater simplicity and stronger work incentives. Reform to the Employment Support Allowance is a particular priority and I am pleased that you, the Prime Minister, and I have agreed to press ahead with reforms to the ESA as part of the spending review that deliver net savings of at least £2.5 billion by 2014/15.”
Chancellor to SoS DWP, 19 June 2010, copied to PM, Deputy PM, SoS CLG, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
These cuts are in addition to the £11 billion cuts in the Budget, which already hit the poorest harder than the rich, women much harder than men, and children and pensioners harder than everyone else. Now the Government is clearly targeting people it agrees are genuinely too sick or disabled to work.
The government told the BBC on Thursday that it would cut £4 billion from out of work benefits.
The government gave no detail about where the £4 billion cuts would fall. There are five million people claim out-of-work benefits, meaning that if the cuts are applied uniformly each claimant would lose an average of £800 per year.
The government’s measures will do nothing to get more people into work if there are no jobs for people to go into, and when the government is cutting support for jobs.
A leaked letter from George Osborne to Iain Duncan-Smith set out a secret agreement to cut an additional £2.5bn from reforms to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) as part of the Spending Review.
The £2.5 billion cut to Employment Support Allowance will hit only those people that the government has already assessed – through the work capability assessment – to be genuinely too sick or disabled to work.
They are on top of savings already built into Treasury plans based on the anticipated results of work capability assessments, where around two-thirds of people so far tested have been found fit to work.
If these cuts are made uniformly, each claimant would lose an average of around £1,000.
This gives the lie to government claims that welfare reforms will tackle worklessness and protect the vulnerable.
The June Budget Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) report showed that budget reduced growth and increased unemployment compared to the pre-budget OBR - cutting jobs and putting more people on benefits.
The government scrapped the Young Person’s Guarantee of a job, training or work experience for all young people who are 6 months unemployed – and the Future Jobs Fund.
The last Labour Govt was making huge savings by getting more people than expected into work. Labour had set out plans to save £20bn over 4 years through getting more people into work – through:
• unemployment being 500,000 lower than expected due to Labour policies
• testing people on ESA/IB to ensure those who can work are expected to do so
• increasing the number of lone parents in employment
• introducing tough conditions on people who refused to work, and strong requirements on jobseekers
• bringing in the Young Person’s Guarantee and the Future Jobs Fund
The Tories, aided and abetted by the supine Liberal Democrats, are still the same old nasty Tory party of old. George Osborne’s rhetoric about living on benefits as a “lifestyle choice” is a smokescreen to hide vicious cuts on the poorest people in society.
Monday 6 September 2010
NAKED CONDEM GERRYMANDERING
NAKED GERRYMANDERING
On Monday evening the ConDem coalition secured the second reading of its gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, that will reduce the number of constituences and introduce AV. It passed its second reading even though most of the Tory MPs who spoke in the debate opposed it.
In his rather ham-fisted speech introducing the bill, the deputy prime minister tried to reassure the House of Commons that the bill was “not an attempt to gerrymander”. Who is he trying to kid? This is the most naked political stitch-up the UK has ever seen.
Indeed, Clegg’s proposal is so blatantly designed to reduce the number of Labour MPs that the process might even acquire a new sobriquet. In future shady political practices intended to fix the outcome of elections might come to be known as ‘Cleggmandering’.
The minority of Con/Dem MPs who did speak in favour accused Labour of being opposed to the equalisation in the number of electors in each constituency. But that doesn’t stand examination. The fact is the Boundary Commission’s existing arrangements already strive to create constituencies of equal size, but it also has to have regard to communities as well.
But if this bill is passed, natural boundaries like rivers, mountains and even the sea will be transgressed. For example, the Isle of Wight will be linked with Hampshire, parts of Cornwall with Devon and seats on one side of the Mersey with those on the other. This illustrates the ludicrous scenarios that will be forced on communities all over the country.
Claims that the UK is over represented by the number of MPs doesn’t stand examination either. The truth is the UK is broadly comparable with most European countries and well below some like Sweden, Ireland, Greece and Austria. Interestingly, even David Cameron said he opposed a reduction in the number of MPs when he was speaking at the Oxfordshire Boundary Inquiry in 2003.
Furthermore, there isn’t a huge discrepancy between the size of Labour seats compared to Tory and Lib Dem ones. On average, the number of registered constituents in Labour seats across the country is 68,423 compared to 72,444 in Tory seats and 69,725 in Lib Dem seats.
On top of that, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2005 3.5 million eligible voters were missing from the electoral roll in England and Wales. And in a report published earlier this year, “under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”. It also found that “the highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.
Con/Dem MPs assert that the Labour government should have done something about under registration, but it is local authorities that are responsible for electoral registration. And in the last five years it is the Tories and Liberal Democrats that have controlled most local authorities so their criticisms of Labour are misplaced.
The Con/Dem coalition argue that it takes more people to elect Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs compared to Labour MPs, but reducing constituencies and introducing AV won’t change that. The fact is the political geography of parliamentary constituencies favoured the Tories in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. It was broadly neutral in the 1970s and 1980s and it has only marginally favoured Labour since the 1990s.
The Liberal Democrats say they are most disadvantaged by the present system. But the Liberal Democrats are not a national party so dividing their national popular vote by the number of Lib Dem MPs elected in their regional enclaves is statistically invalid and extremely misleading.
This is a thoroughly anti democratic bill that Labour will continue to vigorously oppose. To compound the political stitch-up, the Con/Dem coalition want to abolish the public inquiries into boundary changes. At a stroke they want to remove the ability of individual citizens and local communities to have a meaningful say over boundary changes in their area.
The Con/Dem MPs who spoke so passionately against the bill would do well to heed the words of former Republican US president, Herbert Hoover, who said: "Words without actions are the assassins of idealism." The question is; will they acquiesce in the assassination of British democracy.
On Monday evening the ConDem coalition secured the second reading of its gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, that will reduce the number of constituences and introduce AV. It passed its second reading even though most of the Tory MPs who spoke in the debate opposed it.
In his rather ham-fisted speech introducing the bill, the deputy prime minister tried to reassure the House of Commons that the bill was “not an attempt to gerrymander”. Who is he trying to kid? This is the most naked political stitch-up the UK has ever seen.
Indeed, Clegg’s proposal is so blatantly designed to reduce the number of Labour MPs that the process might even acquire a new sobriquet. In future shady political practices intended to fix the outcome of elections might come to be known as ‘Cleggmandering’.
The minority of Con/Dem MPs who did speak in favour accused Labour of being opposed to the equalisation in the number of electors in each constituency. But that doesn’t stand examination. The fact is the Boundary Commission’s existing arrangements already strive to create constituencies of equal size, but it also has to have regard to communities as well.
But if this bill is passed, natural boundaries like rivers, mountains and even the sea will be transgressed. For example, the Isle of Wight will be linked with Hampshire, parts of Cornwall with Devon and seats on one side of the Mersey with those on the other. This illustrates the ludicrous scenarios that will be forced on communities all over the country.
Claims that the UK is over represented by the number of MPs doesn’t stand examination either. The truth is the UK is broadly comparable with most European countries and well below some like Sweden, Ireland, Greece and Austria. Interestingly, even David Cameron said he opposed a reduction in the number of MPs when he was speaking at the Oxfordshire Boundary Inquiry in 2003.
Furthermore, there isn’t a huge discrepancy between the size of Labour seats compared to Tory and Lib Dem ones. On average, the number of registered constituents in Labour seats across the country is 68,423 compared to 72,444 in Tory seats and 69,725 in Lib Dem seats.
On top of that, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2005 3.5 million eligible voters were missing from the electoral roll in England and Wales. And in a report published earlier this year, “under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”. It also found that “the highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.
Con/Dem MPs assert that the Labour government should have done something about under registration, but it is local authorities that are responsible for electoral registration. And in the last five years it is the Tories and Liberal Democrats that have controlled most local authorities so their criticisms of Labour are misplaced.
The Con/Dem coalition argue that it takes more people to elect Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs compared to Labour MPs, but reducing constituencies and introducing AV won’t change that. The fact is the political geography of parliamentary constituencies favoured the Tories in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. It was broadly neutral in the 1970s and 1980s and it has only marginally favoured Labour since the 1990s.
The Liberal Democrats say they are most disadvantaged by the present system. But the Liberal Democrats are not a national party so dividing their national popular vote by the number of Lib Dem MPs elected in their regional enclaves is statistically invalid and extremely misleading.
This is a thoroughly anti democratic bill that Labour will continue to vigorously oppose. To compound the political stitch-up, the Con/Dem coalition want to abolish the public inquiries into boundary changes. At a stroke they want to remove the ability of individual citizens and local communities to have a meaningful say over boundary changes in their area.
The Con/Dem MPs who spoke so passionately against the bill would do well to heed the words of former Republican US president, Herbert Hoover, who said: "Words without actions are the assassins of idealism." The question is; will they acquiesce in the assassination of British democracy.
Friday 3 September 2010
BLAIR'S JOURNEY
As a longstanding trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports, I was extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's revelations about the Hunting Act. I actually joined the League Agaisnt Cruel Sports in the same year that I joined the Labour Party - 1976.
This is the League's take on the latest twists in Tony Blair's story about the passage of the Hunting Act into law.
If TB is to be believed, he didn’t understand the hunting issue until he had a chat with a hunt master, or in this case a hunt mistress, while visiting friends of friends on Elba, as a side trip to his usual Tuscan summer break.
Blair’s understanding of the hunting issue could have been written for him by the Countryside Alliance. He apparently bought hook, line and sinker the assertion that ‘hunting was a large part of our rural present’. He then openly admits to spending time seeking a way out of the political situation he had got himself into.
Even more disturbingly, he reports his conversation with Hazel Blears MP, then a minister at the Home Office, when she apparently asked him for his views on the vigorous policing of the Hunting Act and the police getting a few prosecutions under their belts. He reports her as saying, “I thought you might say that”. Not quite an admission of an instruction to pervert the course of justice, but about as close as one could get.
What Blair still seems to have failed to grasp was the political reality of what he was up against. He gets closest to it when he says, “by the end of it I felt like the damn fox”. That in essence was the whole political point: to his opposition he was the fox! To those who opposed him and all that he stood for, he was a pest that needed to be dealt with, he was a threat to the country and the countryside as they wanted it to be, and they then set out to hound him from office.
If you look at the actions of the so-called countryside lobby, they were clearly designed to remove the elected ‘New Labour’ government from office. Polling showed that over 80% of the so-called countryside marchers were in fact Conservative Party supporters. The hunting issue was just the particular stick that they chose to beat him with.
Support for and opposition to hunting have long been cross party and not a straightforwardly party political issue. Yet at the same time the hunting issue was totemic in many ways. What Tony Blair failed to grasp was that for well over twenty years the vast majority of the public have been against hunting with dogs for sport. For someone who prided himself on finding a third way, that the usually silent majority would back, the hunting issue was one he got comprehensively wrong, and which by his own admission he still does not get.
It is quite fascinating to read the relevant pages of Tony Blair’s book where he writes about his struggle with the hunting issue. Try counting the number of times he uses the word “I”. “I made a fatal mistake”, “I just couldn’t get it”, “I can’t believe it”, “if I told you the contortions and permutation I went through to avoid this wretched business, you wouldn’t credit it”, and so on and on. The arrogance of it is quite extraordinary. Cabinet government and parliament don’t feature in his decision making at all, and the whole thing revolves around what he thinks and what he decided to do. What hubris.
When he met the hunting friend-of-a-friend on Elba, no doubt he was literally a sitting dinner duck. Despite public opinion, government inquiries, and all the rest of it, one personal appeal - no doubt over a few glasses of Chianti in the warmth of an island summer sun - becomes the basis for his policy position on hunting and on that basis he then sets out to frustrate party policy, the will of parliament and the overwhelming majority of public opinion. If that isn’t arrogance I don’t know what it is!
Hunting and the freedom to chase and to kill for sport is emblematic of a particular way of life, which for most of society is already ancient history. In the UK today there are less than a dozen parliamentary constituencies where more than 25% of the electors actually live in rural areas. There are an estimated ten million people living and or working in what are called the rural constituencies, and most of them live in the market towns and larger villages. Less than 4% of them are engaged in any way in farming forestry or fishery. The lady Blair met and was won over by was no more representative of the majority in the countryside as a whole than a poppy would have been representative of a field of sunflowers.
The so-called countryside lobby does not actually speak for the majority of the people who live in or work in the countryside. Neither do they speak for the vast majority of the people who live in the country towns or for the vast majority of those who visit the countryside. The countryside lobby actually speak for that very small group, or at least a section of them, who own the vast majority of the land. Their support base is in the less than 0.5% who own and control over 80% of the land. The fact that Blair bought into their claims about unemployment and social melt down, all of which have proven to be untrue, shows the dangers of go it alone leadership.
The fact that Blair got completely side tracked on the hunting issue is symptomatic of the distance that grows between government and people, particularly Prime Ministers when in government. The Burns Inquiry at considerable expense comprehensively rubbished the countryside lobby’s claims that the rural economy would fall apart, that life as it was known in the countryside would fall apart, yet as a result of one meeting on holiday with a hunt master, the Prime Minister changed his view. It could have been the Chianti, but whatever it was, it was a serious lapse of judgement which his book reveals he still does not understand.
The whole hunting debate gets side tracked when politics gets in the way. First and foremost the Hunting Act does not ban all hunting. What it does is take the fox, deer, hare and mink out of hunting with dogs for sport. What Parliament actually banned was the ancient bloodsport of hunting. Parliament did not ban pest control and it did not ban groups of people in the countryside from getting together and riding around enjoying themselves. In essence as Blair says in his memoir, parliament achieved a “very British compromise” – no thanks to him it now appears.
It won’t be long before the Countryside Alliance will claim that “even Tony Blair” says it is a bad law. Of course that isn’t actually what he is saying, but none the less that will be the gist of their attack. What actually happened was that the parliamentary process worked despite Blair’s best efforts to scupper it, and what we got was the Hunting Act 2004.
The Hunting Act has many critics, but it also has well over 130 convictions. There are still those who argue that they should have the legal freedom to be cruel to animals for sport, but the vast majority of the general public and parliament do not agree with them.
The single most compelling comment on the Hunting Act was the comment by Lord Bingham, the leading Law Lord at the time, when he said that the Hunting Act was a reasoned and proportionate response to the issues that it sought to address.
Blair should have the grace to recognise that parliament got it right and he got it wrong.
This is the League's take on the latest twists in Tony Blair's story about the passage of the Hunting Act into law.
If TB is to be believed, he didn’t understand the hunting issue until he had a chat with a hunt master, or in this case a hunt mistress, while visiting friends of friends on Elba, as a side trip to his usual Tuscan summer break.
Blair’s understanding of the hunting issue could have been written for him by the Countryside Alliance. He apparently bought hook, line and sinker the assertion that ‘hunting was a large part of our rural present’. He then openly admits to spending time seeking a way out of the political situation he had got himself into.
Even more disturbingly, he reports his conversation with Hazel Blears MP, then a minister at the Home Office, when she apparently asked him for his views on the vigorous policing of the Hunting Act and the police getting a few prosecutions under their belts. He reports her as saying, “I thought you might say that”. Not quite an admission of an instruction to pervert the course of justice, but about as close as one could get.
What Blair still seems to have failed to grasp was the political reality of what he was up against. He gets closest to it when he says, “by the end of it I felt like the damn fox”. That in essence was the whole political point: to his opposition he was the fox! To those who opposed him and all that he stood for, he was a pest that needed to be dealt with, he was a threat to the country and the countryside as they wanted it to be, and they then set out to hound him from office.
If you look at the actions of the so-called countryside lobby, they were clearly designed to remove the elected ‘New Labour’ government from office. Polling showed that over 80% of the so-called countryside marchers were in fact Conservative Party supporters. The hunting issue was just the particular stick that they chose to beat him with.
Support for and opposition to hunting have long been cross party and not a straightforwardly party political issue. Yet at the same time the hunting issue was totemic in many ways. What Tony Blair failed to grasp was that for well over twenty years the vast majority of the public have been against hunting with dogs for sport. For someone who prided himself on finding a third way, that the usually silent majority would back, the hunting issue was one he got comprehensively wrong, and which by his own admission he still does not get.
It is quite fascinating to read the relevant pages of Tony Blair’s book where he writes about his struggle with the hunting issue. Try counting the number of times he uses the word “I”. “I made a fatal mistake”, “I just couldn’t get it”, “I can’t believe it”, “if I told you the contortions and permutation I went through to avoid this wretched business, you wouldn’t credit it”, and so on and on. The arrogance of it is quite extraordinary. Cabinet government and parliament don’t feature in his decision making at all, and the whole thing revolves around what he thinks and what he decided to do. What hubris.
When he met the hunting friend-of-a-friend on Elba, no doubt he was literally a sitting dinner duck. Despite public opinion, government inquiries, and all the rest of it, one personal appeal - no doubt over a few glasses of Chianti in the warmth of an island summer sun - becomes the basis for his policy position on hunting and on that basis he then sets out to frustrate party policy, the will of parliament and the overwhelming majority of public opinion. If that isn’t arrogance I don’t know what it is!
Hunting and the freedom to chase and to kill for sport is emblematic of a particular way of life, which for most of society is already ancient history. In the UK today there are less than a dozen parliamentary constituencies where more than 25% of the electors actually live in rural areas. There are an estimated ten million people living and or working in what are called the rural constituencies, and most of them live in the market towns and larger villages. Less than 4% of them are engaged in any way in farming forestry or fishery. The lady Blair met and was won over by was no more representative of the majority in the countryside as a whole than a poppy would have been representative of a field of sunflowers.
The so-called countryside lobby does not actually speak for the majority of the people who live in or work in the countryside. Neither do they speak for the vast majority of the people who live in the country towns or for the vast majority of those who visit the countryside. The countryside lobby actually speak for that very small group, or at least a section of them, who own the vast majority of the land. Their support base is in the less than 0.5% who own and control over 80% of the land. The fact that Blair bought into their claims about unemployment and social melt down, all of which have proven to be untrue, shows the dangers of go it alone leadership.
The fact that Blair got completely side tracked on the hunting issue is symptomatic of the distance that grows between government and people, particularly Prime Ministers when in government. The Burns Inquiry at considerable expense comprehensively rubbished the countryside lobby’s claims that the rural economy would fall apart, that life as it was known in the countryside would fall apart, yet as a result of one meeting on holiday with a hunt master, the Prime Minister changed his view. It could have been the Chianti, but whatever it was, it was a serious lapse of judgement which his book reveals he still does not understand.
The whole hunting debate gets side tracked when politics gets in the way. First and foremost the Hunting Act does not ban all hunting. What it does is take the fox, deer, hare and mink out of hunting with dogs for sport. What Parliament actually banned was the ancient bloodsport of hunting. Parliament did not ban pest control and it did not ban groups of people in the countryside from getting together and riding around enjoying themselves. In essence as Blair says in his memoir, parliament achieved a “very British compromise” – no thanks to him it now appears.
It won’t be long before the Countryside Alliance will claim that “even Tony Blair” says it is a bad law. Of course that isn’t actually what he is saying, but none the less that will be the gist of their attack. What actually happened was that the parliamentary process worked despite Blair’s best efforts to scupper it, and what we got was the Hunting Act 2004.
The Hunting Act has many critics, but it also has well over 130 convictions. There are still those who argue that they should have the legal freedom to be cruel to animals for sport, but the vast majority of the general public and parliament do not agree with them.
The single most compelling comment on the Hunting Act was the comment by Lord Bingham, the leading Law Lord at the time, when he said that the Hunting Act was a reasoned and proportionate response to the issues that it sought to address.
Blair should have the grace to recognise that parliament got it right and he got it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
