A 23rd anniversary is not usually particularly notable, but the anniversary of the Liberty and Livelihood March on 22 September is definitely worth remembering, not least because the current government risks provoking the same sort of passions that fuelled that protest. In 2002, over 417,000 people came to London principally to protest against proposals to ban hunting.
The march was, however, about much more than just the future of hounds and hunts. Hunting has always been a political totem both for the left who see it as the embodiment of Tory England, and for those in the countryside for whom it is the canary in the coal mine of rural freedom. That is why an activity with only 40,000 participants managed to generate a protest of over 10 times that number.
Bizarrely, despite all the political damage that the long and painful process of hunting caused to the then government and its relationship with the countryside, Labour went into last year’s election with a manifesto commitment to legislate on hunting again. I am sure that there are very few in government who think there is any political benefit to ‘banning trail hunting’. It is an utterly irrelevant issue to nearly every voter in the country and will send out a signal not just to people in rural constituencies, but to the country as a whole, that the government is completely out of touch with their real concerns. One of Labour’s greatest figures, Nye Bevan, famously said that the language of priorities was the party’s religion. He must be turning in his grave as another Labour government contemplates a pointless foray into the murky politics of hunting.
Ministers should be in no doubt that there would be absolutely no upside to being dragged into such a blatant act of prejudice. Tony Blair says that the original hunting ban “is one of the domestic measures I most regret” and only a couple of months ago his press guru, Alastair Campbell, admitted that the Countryside Alliance’s campaign against the ban had been a major headache in 10 Downing Street for years.
Hunting may arouse passions in the cranky fringes of urban Labour, but unjust and unjustified legislation would also be the catalyst for growing anger across the countryside. The political currency of marches is probably less potent than it was 23 years ago. There are, however, plenty of ways of demonstrating opposition to a government and its policies. If Ministers do choose to launch another attack on hunting, that could well be the spark that lights a blaze in a countryside which is tinder dry and ready to burn.
As the new Secretary of State for Rural Affairs, Emma Reynolds, sets out to deliver her brief, I cannot believe that she looks on the commitment to legislate on hunting with anything other than trepidation. There is, however, a very simple solution. The government has already reversed its promise not to apply inheritance tax to agricultural property. It seems certain to break its commitment not to raise wider taxes in the budget. By comparison with those major U-turns, dropping a commitment to stop hounds chasing a trail would hardly be noticed.