Boxing Day hunts, and another broken promise...

Christmas Day has come and gone, and that can only mean one thing - Boxing Day hunts.

Seven years on from what was possibly the most hateful, class-prejudice driven piece of legislation on the statute books, certainly in living memory, traditional Boxing Day hunts go from strength to strength. 2012 saw over a quarter of a million people attending over 300 hunts across the length and breadth of the country, from Cornwall to Cumbria, from Norfolk to North Wales (including more than 6,000 in attendance at the Heythrop Hunt - despite the recent criminal waste of £327,000 by the RSPCA in its ongoing persecution of hunters and hunting).

But the news is not all good. Speaking to the Telegraph, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson appeared to rule out the promised vote to repeal the Hunting Act.

Well, there's a surprise.

The Conservative manifesto, for what it is worth, stated (on page 80): "The Hunting Act has proved unworkable. A Conservative government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time."

Whilst this was a much woolier commitment than many of us had hoped, and was given far less prominence than we'd hoped for - tagged on as an afterthought, the final paragraph in the chapter 'Restore our civil liberties' - it was a commitment nevertheless.

However, hopes of a repeal appear to have been dashed for the foreseeable future.

Owen Paterson said, "At the moment, it would not be my proposal to bring forward a vote we were going to lose. There needs to be more work done on Members of Parliament."  He went on: "It is our clear intention to have a free vote but we need to choose an appropriate moment."

Of course, this would seem to be a sensible stance to take. But are we honestly expected to believe that whilst a free vote could not be won in 2013, it may in 2014? Doesn't really seem plausible, does it?

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to point out that Parliament has more pressing issues to be grappling with at present than repealing the Hunting Act, however badly drafted a piece of legislation it may be. I am inclined to agree.

But that's a much more difficult pill to swallow when David Cameon can dedicate no small amount of time to trying to alienate an entire generation of small- and large-C conservatives to impose a wholesale redefinition of marriage, despite it not being in the manifesto of any major political party, and with not even its supporters seeking to claim it a priority.

So we must continue to live in hope for what 2013 may bring, but I cannot claim to be hopeful. After all, when neither party manifestos nor coalition agreements appear to be worth spit, you will forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Why it won't be UKIP that leads to Cameron's demise, but himself...

 

There has been much written in recent months about the rise of UKIP and what is perceived to be the resulting decline in the prospect of a Conservative majority in 2015.  This has lead to talk (from outside of UKIP it must be said) of an electoral pact between the two right-of-centre parties.

 

Although much that has been written about UKIP of late doesn’t hold up to any meaningful scrutiny – for example, contrary to their portrayal in much of the media, the EU ranks as only the third most important issue amongst UKIP supporters – that they appear to be benefitting from their stance on ‘equal marriage’, as widely reported over the weekend, does appear to stand up.

 

The Sunday headlines were predictably dominated by UKIP’s rise to 14%, securing a clear third place, in this month’s Comres poll for theIndependent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror:

 

Conservative 28% (-3%)

Labour 39% (-4%)
UKIP 14% (+6%)
Lib Dem 9% (-1%)
Others 9% (+1%)

Despite the headlines, the polling isn’t all bad news for the Conservatives. They continue to be more trusted on the economy than Labour, which is widely expected to be the key battleground come the 2015 election.  But drill down further into the in depth polling and a worrying picture emerges for Cameron.

 

It’s well documented that older people tend to be more likely to vote in elections than younger people.  They also tend to be far more likely to identify with and vote for Conservatives. Amongst 55-64 year olds, Comres finds that Conservatives hold a one point lead over Labour; this lead rises to 8 points amongst those aged 65+.

 

Whilst these figures tend to be relatively stable – certainly more so than amongst those younger voters – Conservative support amongst the key 65+ age group has fallen four points in a month, to 30%. This is despite, according to Comres, 44% of this age group, generally speaking, identifying themselves as Conservatives.

 

Put another way, one in three Conservatives aged 65+ would cast their votes elsewhere if there was an election tomorrow.

 

Tellingly, over the same period support for UKIP amongst this age group has surged by five points, to 21%.

 

Of course, it would be reckless to purport these figures illustrate support switching from Conservative to UKIP over any one single issue.  That said, the polling does add weight to the suggestion that Conservative voters, no longer just activists, are being haemorrhaged to UKIP as a consequence of Cameron’s ‘equal marriage’ crusade.

 

It’s hardly a surprise that ‘equal marriage’ enjoys considerably less support amongst older voters.  What is, perhaps, more surprising is the criticism of Cameron’s leadership on the matter from those minded to vote UKIP, with a huge 74% being critical of the Prime Minister – this compares to figures of 51% and 31% amongst Labour and Conservative voters respectively.

 

With UKIP maintaining a consistent stance on marriage – they accused the government of ‘picking a fight’ with religious groups earlier this year – they are increasingly becoming the logical, the only, alternative for those of all political persuasions who are vehemently opposed to ‘equal marriage’.

 

Whilst I may indeed be guilty of making too many inferences from what is only two months’ polling, if these patterns are repeated in the months to come they will represent a major headache for the Prime Minister. (So watch out for more good news for pensioners in coming budgets).

 

Should Cameron fail to deliver a Conservative majority in 2015, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his door. It will not be because of the activity of UKIP, not even because of Cameron and Clegg’s civil partnership.

 

Cameron’s political obituary will lead with his electoral suicide over ‘equal marriage’ and his alienation of an entire generation of Conservatives.

Why Napoleon was right about Stockton Council...

From controversial parking charges to wonky lines, barely a month seems to pass without the parking arrangements on Yarm High Street hitting the headlines. However, one story regarding the most recent battleground – over the re-location of two signs informing motorists of the extent of the disk zone – caught my eye in particular.

A bit of background. After being issued with a penalty notice for not displaying a valid parking disk, Jason Hadlow – the chairman of Yarm Town Council – appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. After much consideration, the adjudicator found in Mr Hadlow’s favour, ruling the relevant signage to be “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. In the days that followed, two roadsigns were moved from their kerbside location, into the middle of two parking spaces.

 

 

 

Whilst on the face of it this tale is ostensibly another amusing one of Stockton Council’s incompetence, the comments of an unnamed “spokesman for Stockton Council” as reported in today’s Darlington & Stockton Times are altogether more worrying, being so disingenuous as to be downright misleading.

 

The spokesman said, “Two new parking signs have been put up in Yarm High Street. This is a direct consequence of the recent parking adjudicator’s decision. It is unfortunate that we have to reduce the spaces but it is a necessary consequence of the adjudicator’s ruling.”

 

Firstly, no new signs have been put up; instead, two existing signs were relocated. Okay, a trivial point, but not a great start by the spokesman.

 

Secondly, we come to the claim that the change was a direct consequence of the adjudicator’s decision. Whilst there is no doubt that the signs’ previous locations were criticised by the adjudicator, to blame him for their current location is a gross misrepresentation.

 

The parking adjudicator has no powers to direct a council to do anything. His authority starts and finishes with the ability to quash penalty notices; nothing more, nothing less.

 

What he actually said was, “Whilst it is not my place to make recommendations about the signing one obvious step to improve it would be to ensure that the Zone entry signs are placed next to the carriageway where they are more visible”.

 

No mention of where they should be moved to, and certainly no suggestion that there was any need to remove two parking spaces whilst doing so.  The blame for this latest act of lunacy lies squarely with Stockton Council.

 

Could they have been placed, as the adjudicator suggested, next to the carriageway, alongside the existing parking spaces thereby preserving them? Of course they could. Why weren’t they? Draw your own conclusions.

 

I don’t however subscribe to the view of many, that the signs were moved by Stockton Council’s Technical Services out of malice, in some childish act of revenge at Councillor Hadlow’s victory.

 

Instead, I think it far more likely that Napoleon Bonaparte probably hit the nail on the head, when he said, “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”