Alan Cowell :
In what seemed at first to be a throwaway line on the campaign trail in advance of the general election on June 8, Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain let it be known recently that she has “always been in favour of fox hunting,” which has been outlawed, if pursued with packs of dogs in England and Wales since 2004.
Of all the issues confronting her, fox hunting seemed barely to rise to the surface of a troubled world in which Britain finds itself. The country is scrambling to find a new niche after the decision to leave the European Union and the rise of an unpredictable new administration in Washington.So what was the point?
Her avowal followed a tabloid newspaper’s disclosure that fox hunting’s supporters are hoping to use a projected victory by May’s Conservative Party to press for the repeal of legislation that consigned centuries of hunting with dogs to the history books, along with bear baiting, cock fighting and other pursuits once deemed totemic of a bucolic, rural England. With last week’s publication of her party’s manifesto, May has confirmed her pledge to hold a vote on a pursuit that Oscar Wilde was said to have termed “the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.”
But repeal may not be all plain sailing. Her original remarks to a restricted audience in Yorkshire – before the Manchester bombing this week raised grislier challenges – drew reactions that showed the somber depths of passions associated with a debate that consumed much energy in the Labour administration of Tony Blair.
For some, the hunt represents the class struggle waged by those outside the privileged loop of riders in their scarlet coats atop glistening steeds, pounding across the countryside with packs of hounds baying for the blood of a hapless fellow quadruped. Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, for instance, consorted with his longtime love (and now his wife), Camilla Parker-Bowles, before his marriage to Princess Diana, at the prestigious Beaufort Hunt in Gloucestershire, according to a new biography of the prince.
For supporters, though, the hunt is a statement of rural identity, transcending distinctions of social status or concerns about animal cruelty. The fox’s death is quick, pro-hunt advocates say in response to the anti-hunt depiction of a barbaric, painful demise, in which the quarry is torn excruciatingly asunder.
Hunts, the argument goes, provide jobs and purpose in rural areas and are not merely the preserve of the upper crust. (It helps, of course, to be able to maintain a well-bred horse and a swanky SUV to tow the trailer.) Even after the ban, the hunters still rode out, ostensibly to follow scented trails laid in advance by (human) runners to draw the hounds into pursuit. Ever since the Conservatives returned to power – first in a coalition in 2010, then with a narrow majority in 2015 – they have promised to permit a free ballot in Parliament on fox hunting, enabling legislators to vote without any formal instruction from party managers. Until now, though, given everything else that was going on – first, Liberal Democrat coalition partners who supported the ban, then the Brexit imbroglio that undid David Cameron’s brief second term – that vote never happened.
Which is why May is presenting repeal as a question of continuity and consistency. “Personally,” she said, “I have always been in favour of fox hunting, and we maintain our commitment, we have had a commitment previously as a Conservative Party, to allow a free vote.”
By nodding toward the fox-hunting lobby, of course, May is shoring up her flank, securing a traditional Conservative vote in the shires that might be put off by her iconoclastic and potentially damaging embrace of social and economic policies designed to court what she calls “ordinary working families” in “the mainstream” of British society. In fact, there is every sign that in its quest for a landslide victory, the May campaign is hoping to vacuum up every vote it can, replicating its success in local elections this month, when the Conservatives picked up the support of Brexiteers from the failing UK Independence Party, once a magnetic rallying point for Euroskepticism and a thorn in Cameron’s side.
There was even a report in The Financial Times this month that May’s aides had met with associates of a former Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, to determine where and how they might harvest the votes of disenchanted Labourites, alienated by the party’s unpopular current leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
There have, unexpectedly, been missteps. Last week, for instance, May announced plans for radical changes in social provisions for old people, especially those needing home care for long-term ailments such as dementia. Almost overnight, her lead in the polls fell sharply, leaving some bemused supporters to wonder whether she risked reviving the Tories’ reputation as what she herself once termed “the nasty party.”
On the hunting issue, at least, May has left herself room for manoeuvre. By promising a free vote on the law’s repeal, she will placate the hunt enthusiasts, without tethering herself to an outcome that is far from a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Conservative candidates who are challenging a troubled Labour Party in close-to-call urban heartlands may not be nearly as inclined toward fox hunting as May professes to be.
“I cannot see many Conservative votes for fox hunting in marginal seats we are hoping to win,” said Roger Gale, the head of a Conservative animal welfare group. “In my view, it’d be folly to waste further time on the issue.” – New York Times Syndicate
(Alan Cowell, a former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is a London-based writer).
