Today listeners vote for repeal of Hunting Act

52.8% of listeners voted for repeal of the Hunting Act.  29.7% agreed with Dan Hannan's recommendation of repealing the European Communities Act.  The full result is here.

This vote continues the excellent tradition of Today listeners upsetting the Today programme's editors.  However many times the Today programme changes the nature of its New Year competition the listeners keep voting in a small 'c' conservative way.

Today dropped its long-standing Personality of the Year contest after John Major won the award - even after having 4,000 votes subtracted from the then PM's tally and during one of the trough periods for Tory popularity.  Today then enlisted Labour MP Stephen Pound to champion a listener's law but the idea had to be abandoned when the "bastard" listeners voted for 'Tony Martin's law' - a law that would allow householders to defend their property with any means.

Comments

[michael mcgough]

This proves again how well organised and motivated the anti-hunting lobby is.Campaigners on other issues must learn from them.

[Donal Blaney]

The level of organisation of the pro-hunting lobby is similar to that in America of the National Rifle Association (where candidates of both main parties have to pay homage of sorts to the NRA lest they face deselection or challenges from others). If the pro-hunting lobby were smarter, they would use their enormous power to far greater effect than has hitherto been the case. After all, it is a conservative MOVEMENT and not just the Conservative Party that will be required for the Tories to win the next election.

[Opinicus]

I dont think you're being cynical enough, Ed.

The BBC left the Hunting Act in, knowing it would attract a whipped campaign of pro-hunters who could otherwise have been almost guaranteed to vote for the European Communities Act. Allowing them to harumph about a whipped unfair campaign this morning rather than wake up to the fact that people wanted out of the EU, which is now not the headline is, in BBC terms, a very definite Result.

Manipulating the prejudices of the Tory right and getting them to vote reflexively is a triumph for the lefties in the BBC

[Derek]

Why didn't the programme publish the number of votes cast? My guess is that it is not as large as we might think. Nevertheless it is an excellent result for the hunting lobby. It shows what we already know - that people will vote for something that affects them directly in a personal way rather than for something more nebulous such as repealing the EU Communities Act.

[Denis Cooper]

Generally I make it a rule not to discuss hunting. However I will say this. Along with others I joined one of the marches in London, not to support hunting per se but to support freedom. The Countryside Alliance didn't return the favour when they were asked to pass on information about plans for a mass demonstration calling for a referendum on the EU Constitution. Apparently that was "political", whereas their own campaign to prevent Parliament legislating against hunting was not "political". If they opened their eyes they might see that given the nature of the politicians and bureaucrats running the EU there's the real possibility that eventually there'll be a ban on hunting throughout Union territory, and marches in London would have even less effect than at present. But there you go.

[Umbrella Man]

There has never been more opportunity for single issue pressure groups of a right-wing bent to spring up in Britain. The issues are there: Repealing Hunting Ban; winning powers back from Brussels; controlling immigration; stopping Labour's tax rises; fighting crime. So is the technology and the vacuum left by the Cameroonians.

[Deputy Editor]

The BBC Politics article on this starts with:

"The Countryside Alliance has admitted conducting a drive to get people to vote for a repeal of the laws banning hunting with dogs, in a Radio 4 poll."

[Gildas]

The level of organisation of the pro-hunting lobby is similar to that in America of the National Rifle Association (where candidates of both main parties have to pay homage of sorts to the NRA lest they face deselection or challenges from others). If the pro-hunting lobby were smarter, they would use their enormous power to far greater effect than has hitherto been the case. After all, it is a conservative MOVEMENT and not just the Conservative Party that will be required for the Tories to win the next election.

This is why the Tories must (as Cameron has so far) stay true to their pledge on repealing the Hunting Act. For such a minor pledge, on an issue that only pro-hunters care enough about to change their votes, the CA is brought onside.

I am not sure what you mean about the CA needing to use their power more. In 2001 they were instrumental in unseating Jackie Ballard, and in 2005 most of the seats we gained were ones that were targeted by the hunting guys (best example being the Wrekin which would never have changed hands on the average spin, but because its former MP was such an outspoken anti-hunter in a rural seat was probably the CAs top target). I think that shows a pattern of getting more and more involved in electoral politics, and if the next election shows a real chance to oust Labour and repeal the Hunting ban they will go for it.

[arthur]

As I understand it, the Conservatives have promised a free vote on the issue, not repeal. Ann Widdecombe is obviously still very opposed to repealing the act, judging by her comments this morning. If there is only a small majority, can't see the act being repealed.

[malcolm]

Foolish of the CA to have done this. It isn't as if their sport has even really been curtailed. We had a great opportunity to embarrass the BBC on a subject (the EU)where their reporting is often disgracefully biased and if hugely more important to the country and the CA have blown it.

[Derek Buxton]

Do you still believe any promises made by this current leadership? Anybody? anywhere? Thought not!

[Gildas]

If there is only a small majority, can't see the act being repealed.

Bear in mind some Lib-Dems, Plaid Cymru and even Labour MPs are for repealing it, so I wouldn't be so sure.

Foolish of the CA to have done this. It isn't as if their sport has even really been curtailed. We had a great opportunity to embarrass the BBC on a subject (the EU)where their reporting is often disgracefully, biased and if hugely more important to the country and the CA have blown it.

How terrible for an interest group to mobilise its supporters to sin a publicity coup on one of its core issues! Its not as if anti-EU people weren't posting on websites about their preferred vote choice. Instead of grousing, why not learn from the CA about how to be a more effective lobbying organisation.

[Jake]

I have never been hunting . If confronted with a fox I dare say I might photograph it and wish it well .

What really grates is that this Act was inflicted on England by the British parliament - which includes MP's for celtic constituencies - and which still imposes direct rule on us long after having acceded to the Scots having their own national parliament -

- all the while going out of its way to target England and the English specifically for the denial of those very basic national rights of parliamentary self expression via our own parliament which it ponticates abouts as desirable not only for Scotland

- but for Iraq .

[Gildas]

supporters to sin a publicity coup

or 'win' even. :)

[Annabel Herriott]

I dont know why the Beeb dont just come out of the closet and rename it "New Labour Today" programme. Then we would know what to expect. Not that we dont know already.

[Valedictoryan]

"The BBC left the Hunting Act in, knowing it would attract a whipped campaign of pro-hunters who could otherwise have been almost guaranteed to vote for the European Communities Act."

ROFL. I love this attempt to explain away the fact that the anti-EU lobby could only muster half the support of the pro-hunting lobby. If people find chasing a fox more important than the EU, you have to admit that the EU isn't high in voters priorities.

[Tam Large]

Er... actually the vote to repeal the European Communities Act attracted nearly 30 % of the vote. A very positive result in any circumstances, and a truimph when put in competition with the to the hugely unpopular Hunting Act. Clearly it is high in the priorities of nearly one in three who voted.

Most of my hunting friends are strongly anti-EU, so if the vote could have been to repeal both acts, there would have been a stunning result.

[Valedictoryan]

"Most of my hunting friends are strongly anti-EU"

Yes, but they chose to put chasing a fox above the EU...

[Tory Loyalist]

"Most of my hunting friends are strongly anti-EU"

Yes, but they chose to put chasing a fox above the EU...
____________________________________________________________________

And your point is?

No doubt had UKIP whipped their members to take part in this vote the anti-EU vote would have dwarfed the CA vote but they didn't.

As it happens I agree that the restoration of hunting freedom needs to be a major plank of Tory policy, in addition to EU withdrawal.

Your Eurofanaticism is obvious to all

[Valedictoryan]

"Your Eurofanaticism is obvious to all"

Only in UKIP-speak does "EU isn't high in voters priorities" (pls excuse missing ') count as Eurofanaticism.

[Tory Loyalist]

The EU poses the greatest threat to our liberties since the Battle of Britain.

Your sneering attempt to downplay the threat seems to show exactly where your loyalties lie.

But please, if we've got it wrong, do outline your principles on the EU

If you have any.

[Valedictoryan]

"the greatest threat to our liberties since the Battle of Britain"

Absurd.

[Richard Carey]

Firstly, congratulations to the hunting lobby and the CA for organising a highly successful GOTV operation on this ballot of Today listeners! I know hunt supporters helped us in many critical seats in 2005, providing a huge amount of support to unseat anti-hunt Labour MPs. I hope they managed to learn a little from us about GOTV organisation to help achieve this at the same time!! Whether this will help to actually repeal an ineffective and oppressive law remains to be seen.

I love this attempt to explain away the fact that the anti-EU lobby could only muster half the support of the pro-hunting lobby. If people find chasing a fox more important than the EU, you have to admit that the EU isn't high in voters priorities.

I have been making quite similar points on the original thread about this vote, Valedictoryan. Please don't expect some (including TL!) to be impressed by or argue on a sense of political strategy, polling evidence, fact etc on this issue - I've tried before...

[Tory Loyalist]

Well Valedictoryan, I don't think you need say any more.

Ted Heath would have been proud of you.

[Dave J]

"the greatest threat to our liberties since the Battle of Britain"

Absurd.

No, saying the EU was a GREATER threat than the Luftwaffe would have been absurd. But the majority of the laws that govern the UK come from Brussels, not Westminster, and your dismissal of the issue comes across as very much the same Tory Wet paternalism that foolishly wed Britain to "Europe" in the first place.

[Ted]

Dave J
The majority of Laws? Sorry to be picky but most of what comes out of Brussels is regulation as a result of Acts of Parliament in Westminster following negotiation by our Government with it's partners. The making of Law still lies in Westminster - the fact our legislators & executive have negotiated away the application of these laws and MPs in particular have failed to properly question the executive and fully scrutinise proposed treaties before enacting the enabling legislation (the actual Laws) is the issue.

[Denis Cooper]

Yes and no, Ted. The ECA72 and I guess about eight succeeding Acts to ratify later treaties, including the accession treaties when new member states have joined, are indeed Acts of our Parliament. Parliament can scrutinise a treaty and the ratifying Bill, but in the end the treaty has to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. (Or the government would have to go back and re-open negotiations on those parts which had been rejected, and get all the contracting parties to agree to an amended treaty.) Because these Acts have the character of enabling Acts, the result is that 80% of our new laws now originate from Brussels, and unless Parliament is prepared to set aside our treaty obligations it has no choice but to pass them. They need not be gold-plated, but they have to be implemented.

[Linda Adnil]

No surprise to see the usual EUSSR apologists on this sste

[Richard]

This is great news and well done to the Countryside Alliance for getting their supporters to vote in such large numbers!

I was out following my local hunt on Boxing Day and it was great to see so many others doing the same.

The Hunting Act is bad legislation. Their are many things I disapprove of but I would never wish them to be made illegal. As Roger Scruton said,

"Toleration was one of our English virtues; but New Britain seems unwilling to inherit it. Old England disapproved - adultery, illegitimacy, idleness, drunkenness and swearing - but not for a century or more have any of these been crimes. New Britain disapproves of very little, but wishes all its disapprovals to be law."

[George Hinton]

I see a fudge, when i went to vote on-line on the Radio 4 site, the Beeb had removed that facility, the voting form had disappeared.
I suspect a fudge to ensure that the ECA 1972 didn't get the vote.

[ToMTom]

If you cleaned your cookies after each vote you could multiple vote as I did

[Downsize the NHS]

Hi

The hallmarks of modern Britain are intolerance, anti-freedom political correctness and socialism

Time to sweep them away with freedom-lovingconservative policies.

[Graeme Archer]

I think it's a shame that the fox-hunters won this vote, though i agree with their aims - was there ever a more ludicrous law than the one to ban hunting? (well, perhaps the smoking ban in east london boozers will be another lovely example of the existential gap between New Labour intent and real world experience but we'll see).

What really struck me when I went to vote for Daniel Hannan's proposal is the Today website. Is it just me? Or does it strike others as an obvious example of totalitarian art? All we would need would be some workers in profile and a suitably stakanovite (sp, sorry) slogan. Whether intended or not, it reveals a lot about the left wing crowd who make this terrible programme. The trouble is, I can't imagine waking up without it.