|
Welcome to Ben Bradshaws Website
 |
Pro-hunt Campaigners — 22 September 2004 |
There were some curious responses to the fox hunters� violent demonstration and invasion of Parliament. Charles Moore, the former editor of the Conservative Daily Telegraph, said the hunters deserved support because, unlike the coal miners, they are not subsidised by the tax payer.
Quite why Mr Moore brought the miners into this debate I do not know, but I suspect it is because hunt supporters claim they are defending a �way of life� and are sensitive to the criticism that they were indifferent to Mrs Thatcher�s treatment of the miners.
I rarely agree with Mr Moore, but he is usually more careful with his facts. Because we do, of course, subsidise hunting. Not directly, but to a considerable extent. The taxpayer gives more than five billion pounds a year to landowners and farmers. Some of the richest landowners, who receive the largest subsidies, are also the most generous donors to pro-hunt campaign groups.
It is only possible for rural lifestyles to survive because of the generosity of the majority of us who live in cities.
It is not just the subsidies that go straight to landowners. The taxpayer spends �450 million supporting un-economic rural post offices. We allow rural businesses to pay 50% less rates. The people of Exeter pay for the huge extra cost of schools, social services, police and road maintenance in rural Devon. So is it unreasonable for us to have some say over what goes on in the countryside?
Of course the hunting debate is not really about town versus country at all. Most people in rural areas also wish to see an end to hunting with hounds. The danger is if the hunters continue their acts of violence and law breaking they will destroy the good will of the taxpayer which keeps the countryside going.
|
 |
|