PC 2: The Hunting Act

[Martin Rigby]

As a Liberal Democrat MP from a rural community, I voted against the Hunting Act because it will place the state between our citizens and a long-held tradition that matters to many Britons. I am proud of the free vote that we in the LDs were offered on this matter of conscience - it shows our anti-establishment commitment to doing what's right for our constituencies. Of course it goes without saying that our party's commitment to animal welfare is second to none, and I fully support Liberal Democrat plans to protect animals without unduly restricting the liberties of our citizens.

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

Well, who else could have won this but Labour?

Not that it was impossible for the other parties to win, but none of them seemed really interested in showing up for the first big legislative debate of the round. Aside from William Croft, who has made himself somewhat of a leader among the Tories on rural issues, and Frederick Sackville-Bagg's singular intervention, the Conservatives were completely absent from the public debate and spin war. Was this because there was no unity, or because they deemed this to be a waste of time debate? Judging by the fact that Croft is a leading contender to take up the big office at Smith Square, one might have expected to see the supporters who want to see him win come out to bat for him a little. As it is, he was somewhat effective but, as is becoming his MO, also a bit scattered. It certainly seemed like he was moving the goal posts in his argument from one thing to another as the Labour Party responded, making it seem maybe that his reason for opposing this bill was partisan.

For the Liberal Democrats, this was a funny one. Trevorrow comes out and claims that opponents of the bill are "out of touch" and "elitist" only to be followed on closely by Corrington defending his vote against the bill. What this says is that there is, as widely publicized, a gap between the Orange Bookers and the Beveridge Group that desperately needs attention if the Lib Dems are going to make the most of their gains under the late Charles Kennedy, and push to become kingmakers at the next election. This should also serve as a warning: a free vote in parliament is not the same as open day in the Press. If your message is disjointed, the argument that "we allow a variety of beliefs" is only going to go so far to reassure your supporters, and it will do almost nothing to win over your potential supporters. While a free vote in Parliament is nothing extraordinary, it is not always best to draw attention to it--unless it is a strategic decision to offer a free vote.

Coming to Labour, they were united and on message. They had a decent mix of championing their policy and attacking the opponents, though they did tend to lean a little more heavily on the defense with what should have been a sword issue. Mary MacAndrews leads the way with a good defense of the policy and follows that up with an immediate smack-down of Will Croft's rather unique talking point about freedom. This was backed up by a number of Labour MPs who piled onto MacAndrew's smackdown of Croft (a sign of things to come?) and then Jack Anderson bringing it back to the policy and defending it. Amelia Lockhart established herself as the attack dog of New Labour throughout this debate, while Jack and Mary appeared as the calm, policy-driven types. Overall, a good (though not perfect) performance from them.

Momentum:

Labour: +5
Conservative: 0
Liberal Democrat: 0

XP:

Mary MacAndrews: +1
William Croft: +2