Cameron knew exactly what he was doing, and the SNP did exactly what he expected them to.

The whole thing had s0d all to do with foxes or hunting, and everything to do with seeing which way the SNP would jump when it came to voting on English laws.

The Tories have re-mastered the game of politics. Trust nothing. Everything is done for a reason.

That is what he would like you to think, and the spin his friends in the press are giving it. I am not convinced. As has been said before, when it is a toss up between c0ck up and conspiracy, it is usually a c0ck up.

There are a number of issues here.
The Tories knew, despite their manefesto commitment, that they would never get a repeal through a free vote in the commons as things stand.
So they tried to use a Statutory Instrument which many people, including at least 40 of their own MP’s felt was a bit sneaky and underhand, and so failed to get a substantial majority of their own MP’s to toe the line- it was touch and go even before the SNP put their oar in.
Even under the EVEL proposals that they have had to kick down the road because, again, they knew they may not get a majority as the proposals have at present a number of flaws that require further consultation, ALL MP’s regardless of where their constituency is, would still have been eligible to vote on Statutory instruments

Who has won on this one? Too soon to tell, but as has been said on one of the broadsheet websites, it makes Cameron’s task of bringing through contentious UK wide legislation much more tricky, and will continue to do so even after EVEL.

Will they force through an upgraded version of EVEL and then win a free vote on repeal of hunting in England and Wales? If the polls are right, most of the UK population do not want a return to Hunting as it was pre the Act, and those with slim majorities may do the right thing.

The biggest loosers may well be the hunting lobby in Scotland who are probably seething, as it may well be that the law there is amended to fall in line with England and Wales, thus removing one of the arguments for the Statutory Instrument that just failed to take off.

I do feel a lot of the anti sentiments are more class-based than anything else.

Moggy

This is not my personal experience, but may be true of others I can’t really comment on that. In my experience many of the hunt supporters where I grew up, perhaps even a majority, are not ‘posh’ people, and many of those who oppose hunting with dogs on their land are what would probably be called upper class, certainly upper middle class.

It is more a case that those who know about countryside matters are aware that the vermin control element could and should be done much more efficently and humanely by alternative means. Some ignore this evidence and want to enjoy the chase.

Edit: as I suspected, I have just had an email from my MP who has said he is going to ignore me, stick to the Tory line and vote for the statutory instrument. I have informed him, politely, that I am hugely disappointed but not surprised.

I was brought up in the countryside, and along with a large percentage of our neighbours, was not a fan of the hunt or their practices. I currently live in a semi rural area and it is the same again here. A fair number of local land owners don’t allow the local hunt on their land, even the emasculated drag hunts they are supposed to have these days.
It is a myth to say all counrtyside folk want the hunting act repealed, it is only a relatively small section of the community who do so. The Countryside Alliances claims of redunancies failed to happen locally. In my opinion the balance between sport and vermin control is about right at the moment.
I have written to my MP to ask him to vote against the proposals. He will, of course, ignore me as he is pro hunting, voted against the Act in the first place and the Countryside Alliance gave him an award in 2003 but I felt I should register my point of view.

My goodness, it would appear Gove has made a sensible decision (is this a first?) as justice secretary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581

They had Liam Nolan on the local news channel, and he was forced to admit that he could not on one hand quote OFSTED on their corporate website as showing PB 1 & 2 as being outstanding which implied they agreed with the system and then rubbish the same team when they reported PB3. He agreed changes had to be made and had ‘accepted’ the resignation of the head and SMT.

oops, bet Dave wishes he hadn’t got involved with opening this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33450881

P.s. The Telegraph is but a pale shadow of it’s former self since the Barclay brothers took over.

About the “nasty, nasty man” comment, I wasn’t particularly talking about the policies, although I don’t agree with them for the most part, I am talking about him as an individual, as a thouroughly unpleasant person. I think it is his lack of anything that approaches humanity and his utter conviction he is right even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because he “believes it to be true” and has no compunction in being economical with the truth that puts me off. That and the smugness.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238977[/ATTACH]

This dislike would apply to anyone with a similar combination of traits whatever their political affiliation, but in my limited experience, most people with these traits tend to be right leaning.

As far as the budget is concerned, the IFS has had a few words on the subject according to a radio report I just heard. Not entirely complementary, saying the working poor will be the worst hit.

Frank Field has a difference of opinion with the tories about who is dependent on tax credits, he makes a cogent argument that it is in reality employers in the UK that are dependent on topping up the poor pay they provide by the use of the TC system. He implied on the same radio program that he believes the “living wage” announced is too low and should not be staggered to arrive after the tax credit base has been slashed.

The last paragraph in the D.Tel. Piece below explains how he hopes that the tories “don’t punish todays low paid workers”..
They did not listen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11720057/Budget-2015-Gordon-Browns-tax-credits-monster-must-be-slain.html

This may be why many small business owners are not at all keen on the “living wage” concept.

And on the topic of ‘welfare dependancy’, as the graph in Frank field’s article shows, the largest benefit spending is on the state pension, so does that not mean that all those receiving the state pension are equally welfare dependant and should be despised?

Of course not, nor should the vast proportion of hard working people who receive appropriate benefits and will loose out as a result of this very political budget.