The fox hunting ban is still a bad idea

Sir Lynton Crosby, the Australian election guru, used to advise David Cameron to scrape “the barnacles off the boat”. By this, he meant that unpopular policies on peripheral matters should be cast aside. This was to ensure they did not distract from the core priority messages.

And now the Times has reported that “the Conservatives will make a manifesto commitment not to try to revoke the fox hunting ban”. This follows the 2017 manifesto promise to hold a free vote in parliament on repealing the 2004 Hunting Act.

Labour has used hunting to portray the Conservatives as the party of animal cruelty. The class war element was a bonus — as was the message that Tories were old-fashioned and out of touch. The fox hunting issue may not have show up in the headlines, but it was used in social media campaigns, especially those targeted at young voters.

Those on the pro-hunting side tend to be less political. They are usually people who hunt and simply want to continue doing so. The “ban” on hunting has proved unworkable. Over 250,000 to 300,000 people still gather each year for the Boxing Day meet, the busiest day of the hunting calendar. Some evidence shows that support has actually increased since 2004.

That does not make the ban entirely harmless. A lot of police and court time can be taken up investigating complaints from animal rights protesters.

A study by Jeremy Naylor, an equine vet and former senior lecturer at Bristol University, found that the law in England and Wales is “less effective and more cruel” than in Scotland. While in Scotland any number of dogs may be used to flush out foxes, in England only two dogs may legally be used. It means that the “active pursuit” of the fox is quicker is Scotland.

The more fundamental argument is whether there is a need to control the fox population. The Labour Party has not proposed that the fox be protected as an endangered species. Only about five per cent of foxes are killed through hunting. The alternatives to hunting of trapping and shooting are crueller than hunting since, again, the fox takes longer to die.

Therefore the animal welfare case for hunting is strong. But nobody is making it very strongly. The Countryside Alliance calls it a “niche issue” and regards other rural challenges — such as flooding — as more important. Opinion polling shows few regard the matter as a priority. But most are opposed, though the margin varies enormously depending on the wording of the question.

Even so, MPs will inevitably hear the passionate more prominently than the quiescent. In 2002 there was a march in London by the Countryside Alliance where over 400,000 turned up in opposition to the hunting ban. It was thought, then, to have been the biggest such demonstration in British history. At that time the passion was with the pro-hunting side — but now it is with the anti’s.

That is why the messy situation is likely to drift along. We have an illogical, illiberal piece of legislation. Just as many foxes are killed — with rather greater cruelty — as before the ban. Police are diverted from dealing with burglary and assault. MPs retreat in the face of online warriors who inundate their email inboxes with angry protests.

There is not much point blaming the Conservatives for such weakness. It is possible to lead rather than follow public opinion. That has been the approach of “conviction politicians” such as Margaret Thatcher. But as she also appreciated, in a democracy there are limits to how far ahead you can go without leaving the electorate behind.

The argument for hunting could be won, but it has yet to be made. Realistically there is not time to convert public opinion over the next three weeks. To use another of Sir Lynton’s maxims, which will be appreciated by country folk, “You can’t fatten a pig on market day.” Those who want freedom will have to fight harder — and longer — for their cause to prevail.