Government’s bully tactics cannot prevent a humiliating defeat

Gavin Shuker, the shadow environment minister, writes about the defeat inflicted on the govenment in the Commons last night over a ban on circus animals.

Gavin Shuker MP (Labour, Luton South) is the shadow environment minister

This will be the last in my trilogy of articles here on Left Foot Forward, detailing the dithering incompetency of the government and in particular their Defra B-Team. The matter in question? A ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Seems like a small issue? You wouldn’t think so after the actions of the government over the last few days.

Matters came to a head yesterday, as a Backbench Business Motion jointly laid by a cross-party alliance of Mark Pritchard, Bob Russell and Labour’s Jim Fitzpatrick was debated in Parliament.

The motion called for a ban: the policy supported by every single animal welfare organisation, the vast majority of the public and the bulk of MPs from all parties.

Despite this opposition, the government has decided to introduce a licensing scheme, a measure supported by the circuses alone. The motion was significant therefore, in opposing expressed government policy – something that is rarely seen in these backbench-led debates.

Backbench Business Debates are intended to allow backbenchers to more freely express their views, and as such are rarely put to a vote. When they are, the convention is that the party whips do not press their MPs to vote along the party line with quite as much pressure as they usually might.

Some Tory MPs had already broken cover earlier in the week calling on the prime minister to change his policy, and facing an embarrassing defeat the government decided to ignore the convention.

First, a more favourable amendment to the motion was tabled by MPs clearly leant on by their party. As this ploy was rightfully rejected by the Speaker it emerged that, incredibly, the government was seeking to enforce a three line whip on their MPs – a first for a backbench debate.

The depths to which the government was prepared to go to avoid humiliation had yet to be understood.

As the debate got underway, the Tory MP Mark Pritchard revealed quite how far and how high the bullying tactics went, as he outlined the prime minister’s personal involvement in a campaign to silence him and hide the government’s incompetence on this simple issue. His words are well worth a watch here.

That revelation was followed an hour or so later by another. The government, witnessing their own MPs queue up to denounce their policy, made an about turn and declared a free vote on the issue. A free vote on a motion that directly opposed their own position. And what is more, the hapless Minister was left alone to defend the policy, that by all accounts, had been forced upon him by No 10.

Despite his efforts, when it came to the vote, not a single MP from their own benches was willing to support the government, and the motion was passed. Constitutionally, they do not have to follow it, but the political pressure will be severe if they look to do otherwise, not least from their own MPs.

I hope they do finally see sense and introduce a ban. It is the right thing to do. In some ways, it is a small issue, but the government’s behaviour has revealed much. The extent to which they are prepared to go to defend an indefensible policy is astonishing, and the prime minister’s shiny exterior is wearing off.

He has denied it, but his personal involvement in this shoddy affair reveals a side rarely seen before. Not only did he threaten MPs, but stitched up his own Defra Minister, in a move reminiscent of the time he made Caroline Spelman take the blame for the government’s U-turn on forests.

Take note: the DEFRA B-team has been put on notice.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

10 Responses to “Government’s bully tactics cannot prevent a humiliating defeat”

  1. Stuart Gray

    Government's bully tactics cannot prevent a humiliating defeat – Left Foot Forward

  2. Robert

    But of course it would have been nice to have labour doing this, yes yes they placed the review, but they had 13 years to do this, so jumping on the band wagon not very cleaver is it.

    The Tories will ban it not labour.

  3. 13eastie

    Mr Shuker does not seem to have much to say on the supposed animal welfare issues here.

    He typifies an opposition, which, unable to produce one jot of alternative policy, is forced continually instead to obsess instead about the Govt.

    Since Mr Shuker wants to talk about “dithering” and “incompetency” [sic] in the context of a spurious debate about animals, the basus of which is, in fact, solely in political tribalism, perhaps we can look at past form in this regard?

    The Hunting Act 2004 arose from a truly hopeless, cynical bill whose derivation was in a paltry manifesto gesture to ranks of Labour-supporting class-war enthusiasts.

    The Bill’s poverty of persuasion, principal or potency betrayed its true purpose from the outset.

    Indeed, it was so poor that:

    a) it failed to get Royal Assent without invocation of the Parliament Act
    b) it produced a law so useless that it has never been enforced
    c) it is impossible to argue that a single animal has benefited from it

    This gift from Labour to society came at the cost of an astonishing 700 hours of parliamentary time being devoted to it.

    This was a hundred times more attention than was given to Blair’s disastrous and illegal Iraqi incursion which resulted in up to a million excess deaths (

    (It is also considerably more time in the chamber than Mr Shuker has managed to clock up in the brief time since he inherited his safe seat from its disgraceful previous incumbent).

  4. James de la Mare

    While many of us were very critical of Cameron’s attempt to silence Pritchard MP, I agree completely with the two previous commenters on this article. Nor do I see any persuasive evidence that animals are harmed by entertaining us in circuses. They’ve been doing so for centuries and continue to do so in other countries. They seem to be well treated by most circus owners. So Mr Shuker do please try – when you start your next series – to write about something worth our reading, and not simply going on and on with the tired old party political point scoring.

  5. mr. Sensible


    Well done Mr Shuker. Lets see what happens next…

    Robert, from what I gather the Animal Welfare Act gives ministers power to do this without legislation. The government should just get on with it.

  6. Ed's Talking Balls

    Well done to Mark Pritchard.

    It’s a cowardly government that feels the need to silence opposition from its own backbenchers. I have to say that, even as a Conservative supporter, I’ve been thoroughly unimpressed with this government’s attitude to parliamentary checks and balances.

  7. Leon Wolfson

    mr. Sensible, among other things acting under existing legislation would lead to quite a few animals being put down.

  8. gail

    I think it would be far more entertaining if Cameron and Clegg would don a panto horse suit and parade around the circus ring myself – whip up a bit of excitement with Clegg hanging onto Cameron’s backside – shouldn’t be too difficult !

  9. Daniel Pitt

    Government’s bully tactics cannot prevent a humiliating defeat:

  10. Caroline Spelman needs to start doing her job properly | Left Foot Forward

    […] Spelman associates with a shambles? After the forests sell off failure, the circus animals ban farce and the badger cull catastrophe, comes Spelman’s unwanted meddling in our nation’s planning […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.