The last time I tackled the subject of fox hunting in this column, I got into a lively discussion with Researchers who, while certainly not wishing to hunt themselves, nevertheless felt strongly that others should be allowed to do so if they so chose. For them, it was a civil liberties issue, and the UK Government's proposed ban on hunting with hounds represented an authoritarian erosion of personal freedoms.

Personally, I disagree. For me, the ban would reflect widespread public revulsion at the apparent sadism and bloodlust of people whose idea of fun is to chase a small animal across fields until it's exhausted, and then watch it being torn to bits.

But I do not wish to reopen that argument. I would, instead, like to suggest that the latest machinations in Parliament over the issue have highlighted another aspect of this whole protracted saga: the democratic angle.

Simply: are we in Britain governed by our elected representatives or not?

Those elected representatives, in the House of Commons, have repeatedly voted for a complete ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. In doing so, they have reflected the will of the people, as expressed in numerous opinion polls. The Scottish Parliament has also voted for a ban on blood sports.

But while the Scots have got their ban, the situation in England and Wales remains in limbo, because the inmates of the House of Lords think they know better than both the general public and the MPs in the Commons. The last time the issue was put to them, their Lordships defiantly voted against any change in the law. Now, in a remarkable mass conversion, the Lords have come down in favour of allowing hunting to continue, but with tighter regulation.

Now, granted, the general public often displays dubious judgement, and some very foolish things are said and done by MPs. I followed the hunting debate in the Commons with great interest, partly because it was such a novelty to find myself agreeing with Ann Widdecombe about anything. The most offensive contribution came, I thought, from the former Tory leader William Hague, who likened hunters to other minorities facing persecution from the majority. This argument rather overlooks the fact that a person chooses to become a fox hunter. People do not choose which ethnic group they wish to belong to. They do choose to take up blood sports.

It was, however, a good, lively debate in the Commons. In contrast, the sight of the House of Lords on television made it abundantly clear why fresh ideas so rarely come from the UK's upper House. I am all in favour of provision being made for the elderly and confused, not least because I am rapidly heading towards membership of that social grouping myself. I just don't think that they should be permitted to block legislation which enjoys the clear support of both the electorate and those it has elected.

The best argument I've heard from those who oppose the ban on hunting is the one that says it's an irrelevance - that the attention and Parliamentary time that is being spent debating the issue could be far better spent. I agree. I'd far rather that the emotion and energy currently being devoted to the hunting debate was being spent on eradicating poverty, or improving the health services.

And yet the Lords' intransigent refusal to bow to democracy has made it a matter of principle: a case of the privileged against the people. The House of Lords defending fox hunting is a case of one anachronism defending another. The Government should now invoke the Parliament Act, which enables the Commons to overrule the Lords when an issue has been as exhaustively debated as this one has, and thus bring the matter to a long overdue conclusion.

Then, when time permits, they should look once again at the whole absurd institution of the Lords, and consider whether there is any way for it to be made fit to participate in government in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, America's upper House is currently serving democracy rather better. Cynics have often commented that America has the finest democracy that money can buy - and President Bush's pandering to the oil industry, at the expense of the environment, certainly does little to contradict that view.

But now the Senate looks likely to pass a bill controlling financial contributions to political campaigns in the United States. The bill is aimed at curtailing 'soft money' contributions to party political funds - unlimited, unregulated donations which the party concerned often uses to help an individual candidate.

The legislation has been controversial, to say the least. Its supporters include both Democrats and Republicans, but some of those who oppose it do so vehemently. One of the bill's main critics, Kentucy Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, has argued that banning 'soft money' contributions is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment right to free speech. and has vowed to fight the bill in court if it is passed. (Amazing how hard some people are prepared to fight to defend the power of big money, isn't it?)

However, the Enron scandal has strengthened the hand of the reformers. The bankrupt energy corporation was a major contributor to political party funds, and Enron's collapse has renewed public concern about just who's paying the politicians. Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan and Conneticut Republican Christopher Shays have led the campaign funding reform movement in the Senate, and Meehan has commented:
'As the Enron clouds come in, the public's tolerance for this "soft money" system is growing thin. With each revelation and each additional "soft money" dollar that rolls in, it is becoming more difficult to defend our current campaign finance system.'

President Bush has indicated that he would sign the reform bill into law if it is passed by the Senate. Given the questions that have been asked about the sources of his own campaign funding, he could hardly be seen to oppose reform.

However, although the sections of the bill that concern campaign reform have attracted most attention, it contains another provision that seems equally radical to me. The bill would outlaw negative advertising by political candidates in the two months before a Presidential election. During that time, candidates would be prevented from broadcasting advertisements that criticise their opponents' stance on any issue - a measure that might be particularly welcome in America, where (unlike in Britain) political parties and candidates can buy TV and radio ads like any other advertiser.

Now that's what I call revolutionary. Can you imagine a General Election campaign in which the candidates were all obliged to be positive and emphasise their own ideas, rather than trying to foster fear of the opposition? Difficult, isn't it? And doesn't the fact that it's so difficult to imagine that scenario say a lot about the dark art of politics on both sides of the Atlantic?

Barely a week seems to go by these days without another intriguing scientific survey being published. This week it's the turn of business consultancy company Roland Berger, whose survey has come to the conclusion that men aged between 20 and 29 have the same mentality as schoolgirls.

According to the survey, 20-something men are like teenage girls in that they are 'carefree thrill-seekers' who follow fashions and trends.

The survey of 1,500 people suggests that both groups have devil-may-care, tomorrow-never-comes attitudes to drinking, smoking and sex. It is, apparently, only around the age of 30 that male attitudes move on and they start thinking about settling down. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to settle down, put their finances in order and even set up home in their early twenties.

Gerald Corbae of Roland Berger has commented:
'Women everywhere, I'm sure, will be praising this research as final proof of what they have always believed about the weaker sex.'

I wonder how true that is? It has long been recognised as a general principle that women mature faster than men, a tendency that has been linked to the fact that women are still usually expected to take responsibility for contraception. The argument goes that, when you're the one who can get pregnant, you naturally tend to be the one who takes greater care.

But the trouble is that for every rule, there are countless exceptions, as the rising rates of teenage pregnancy amply illustrate. I've certainly known women who carried on recklessly partying through their twenties and beyond (and why not?) On the other hand, I have at least one online teenage female friend who seems like a very sober, serious-minded individual.

I'm bound to agree, though that most of us guys tend to fight the idea of settling down pretty hard. I might consider it now, but then I am in my early forties. Until recently, I've immatured with age. I had a sensible job and almost got married in my late twenties, but had some seriously over-indulgent years in my thirties. If I've calmed down a little lately, it's only really because the excesses were starting to have unpleasant effects on my health. I have friends of my own age who are sensibly settled down, and others who still party hard. You really can't generalise too much.

So I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this survey's conclusions. But I do know one thing: I'm still not mature enough to work for Roland Berger. I'd never be able to resist the temptation to answer the phone and say: 'Roland Berger and large fries to go.'

Finally, I cannot let this week go by without mentioning the unique football match that took place between Sheffield United and West Bromwich Albion in England's Nationwide League Division One last Saturday. Almost everyone in Britain must have heard about it, but for the benefit of other readers I should explain why the match provided one of this week's great talking points in the UK.

It was the first match in the long history of England's Football League to be abandoned due to a shortage of players. Sheffield United had three players sent off. The Blades - as they're rather aptly nicknamed - then lost two more players through injuries, after they'd used up all their substitutes. At that point, with United reduced to six men, the referee was forced to abandon the match, because the laws of the game state that each team must have at least seven players.

This has caused much controversy. When the game was abandoned, West Bromwich were leading 3-0 with eight minutes to go. Ordinarily, if a match is abandoned, the game is replayed; but the Football League are expected to make an exception in this case, since even United's officials agree that it would be unfair for Albion not to get the three points from a game they were obviously going to win. A decision from the League is expected on the day this issue of 'The Post' appears.

I certainly hope and expect that the League will do the right thing and give Albion the points. But in the meantime, I'd like to draw the attention of United manager Neil Warnock to a player who seems to have all the right qualities to become a Blade. He is Paulo Araujo, of Brazilian club Oeiras, who was recently shown two red cards and three yellow cards - in the same match.

During the game between Oeiras and River in the State League of Piaui, Araujo was sent off after receiving two yellow cards for fouls. But he didn't leave the pitch - and, incredibly, none of the officials noticed until he committed another bookable offence. While issuing Araujo's third yellow card of the game, referee Edmilson Timoteo da Silva realised what had happened and gave Aruajo his second red card.

The Brazilian Football Confederation are now investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, Warnock has declared that one of the players who were dismissed on Saturday - George Santos, who was sent off for a spectacularly vicious foul - will never play for Sheffield United again.

Could there possibly be a more natural replacement for him than Paulo Araujo?

Ormy's 'Notes' and Other Scribblings

The definitive collection

Ormondroyd

21.03.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page