Snapping at his heels

AFTER three previous votes to ban fox-hunting, all by overwhelming majorities, this week's debate in the House of Commons should have been a rather desultory affair—a sort of parliamentary Groundhog Day. Not at all. Passions ran high. The anger of anti-hunting Labour MPs was as intense as ever. Most of it, however, was aimed not at the hunters, but at their own government. What infuriated them was the conviction that despite the certainty of another huge majority against hunting and the fact that the prime minister had himself rather ostentatiously voted for an outright ban, the government was looking for a compromise. Although it is not entirely clear what this “middle way”, as it is known, would entail—probably the outlawing of some types of hunting with hounds, but the continuation of fox-hunting, albeit under tightly regulated conditions—it is as clear as a frosty country morning that whatever is cooked up will be regarded with revulsion by most Labour MPs. So why should Tony Blair be prepared to use up so much of his political capital to preserve something that he says he's against?