Don't mention the war

Tweet According the the Tories locally, their candidate is head of the Countryside Alliance, "which campaigns for rural communities and provides outdoor education opportunities for youngsters". It's a bit like saying that the Army runs the largest apprenticeship scheme in the UK. Both are entirely true, but neither statement conveys the entire truth about the organisation's aims.

The Countryside Alliance, like the Tory candidate in this constituency, has one single over-riding objective, namely the repeal of the Hunting Act. It's never mentioned locally though - those who support hunting know who to vote for, and those who don't would only be put off by the candidate's real objective.

No surprise then that the Labour campaign did their very best to highlight the issue yesterday.

The Toryside Alliance

Tweet A link to an interesting letter found its way into my inbox this week. It's a letter from our local Tory candidate, in his guise as Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, providing a briefing to Tory candidates in marginal seats. It's a novel way for the Chief Executive of an "all-party" campaign to behave.

The "all-party" campaign has itself, it seems, been conducting "extensive and detailed polling" in some of those self-same marginal seats asking "whether the Conservative Party's position on repeal is likely to alter voting patterns". The boundaries between the CA and the Tory Party seem to be becoming a little blurred here, to say the least.

One of the other points made in the letter is a suggestion that the League Against Cruel Sports may have abused its position as a charity, since its activities might be perceived as being 'anti-Conservative'. The point of principle - i.e. that a charity may not get involved in party political activity - is correct. It's a serious allegation, but it is a matter for the Charity Commission and the law to determine whether LACS have actually breached the law.

I note however, from the CA site that all donations made to them, as well as the greater part of membership monies, qualify for Gift Aid as charitable donations. Most of the work of the CA is, it seems, regarded as coming under the remit of 'charity'. So clearly, if that organisation were to be caught out undertaking activities aimed at benefiting one party, wouldn't that fall to be dealt with under the same rules?

Reverting to type

Tweet The Conservatives have been busy locally delivering a little leaflet on behalf of their Westminster candidate.

He's clearly been following his own advice. "I am currently head of one of Europe's largest membership organisations lobbying for rural communities" is hardly an entirely open reference to the Countryside Alliance and its main aim. No reference at all to the main objective of the Conservative campaign locally (the restoration of fox-hunting), despite the fact that the campaign is almost entirely funded by people pursuing that aim.

He also follows Cameron's lead – don't tell them what you're for, just keep stressing that you're not Labour. As I've suggested before, with one lot campaigning on the basis that they're not Labour, and the other lot campaigning on the basis that they're not the Tories, this looks like being a pretty uninspiring campaign from the UK parties.

PS – Whilst previous efforts from the blue camp locally have tended to include one sentence in Welsh (telling people that a Welsh version of the leaflet is available as a special favour if they request one from the office), this one reverts to the Tories' normal monolingual approach. In an area where the majority of the population are fluent in Welsh, they are distributing a leaflet which, but for a change of logo, could have gone out in any constituency in England. Valleys Mam commented a few days ago on the lack of commitment by the Conservative Party to the language. It seems to me that, as far as Welsh is concerned,the English Conservative Party in Wales is merely reverting to type.

Rebellious subs

Tweet A few days ago, I suggested that on his visit to Carmarthen, the Tory leader 'bought a bun'. Thanks to the fearlessly detailed reporting of the Carmarthen Journal, I can now reveal that statement to have been incorrect. In fact, Cameron bought:

- An Owain Glyndŵr sub, with the words "It's got to be that one, hasn't it?". (I haven't a clue what the contents of such a delicacy might be. I'll have to check when I'm in town next week. But given his remarks on further powers for the National Assembly, I have to wonder whether he knows quite what Glyndŵr was famous for).

- Some Welsh cakes.

- Two Cornish pasties, one of which he donated to the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, who was accompanying him on his walkabout.

Just thought that I ought to set the record straight.

Update 24th Feb: An Owain Glyndŵr sub contains Welsh cheese, red onion, ham, and Welsh chutney. For completeness.

Hidden agendas

Tweet "The Field" is not a magazine which features on my regular reading list, but my attention was drawn to an article in the November issue, written by the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance. He is also known to us locally, of course, as the Conservative candidate for the parliamentary election.

The article quotes extensively the founder and director of a rather shadowy organisation called Vote-OK. Vote-OK proudly boast that they helped to unseat a number of Labour MPs in the 2005 election, and are aiming to do even better in the next election, because they have had time to "bed down in the target constituencies". The impression given by the article is of an objective interview; but it seems that there may be a much closer relationship between the two people involved.

Vote-OK have a web-site, which spells out what they are about, with rather more honesty than when they're out on the ground campaigning. They are a single-issue group, properly and legally registered as a third party organisation with the Electoral Commission, which seeks the repeal of the Hunting Act by removing anti-hunting MPs (Labour) and replacing them with pro-hunting MPs (Tory). They concentrate their efforts on marginal constituencies, and organise thousands of volunteers from local hunts to turn out to support the Tory candidates.

Specifically, they claim to have unseated 29 MPs in the last election, and to be targeting another 139 for the next election. Although their FAQ's section declines to identify which MPs and constituencies they are targeting, I think we can probably take it as read that Nick Ainger and Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire will be receiving the 'benefit' of their attention.

And that means that people locally should know a bit more about them. There are two aspects in particular which might cause people to ask some searching questions.

Take, for example, the comments about them in a report by the Electoral Commission on the 2005 General Election. The report described them thus, "Vote OK was an innovative and unusual ‘single-issue’ campaigning group in that it did not campaign at all on the issue in question", and "Vote OK did not campaign on the issue of hunting". Yes, that's right. They campaign in a range of constituencies in pursuit of a single policy objective which they endeavour never to actually mention!

Indeed, according to this report from the Mirror on a more recent election campaign, their volunteers are actually under clear instructions not to talk about hunting at all, and to give the impression that they are Tory Party workers.

Secondly, what exactly is their relationship with the Countryside Alliance? They claim, again in their FAQ page, to be entirely independent of the Alliance, but they were actually founded by three former members of staff of the Countryside Alliance, and the Electoral Commission report refers to them as having "emerged out of the Countryside Alliance". The 'emergence' of this new group appears to be a means by which an apparently all-party group has spawned a political wing which specifically aids the Tory Party.

More evidence for the relationship between Vote-OK and the Countryside Alliance comes from 2005, when the Guardian published a leaked transcript of a conversation between the Chief Executive of the Alliance (and now Tory candidate for this constituency), and the people involved in setting up the new group. The transcript indicates that the said Chief Executive took a big part in setting up Vote-OK, and in advising them on how to get rid of Labour MPs.

Amongst other things, he advised them against physical assaults on Labour MPs, with the words "Alun Michael [the rural affairs minister] with blood running from his nose lying in a ditch because somebody decked him might give the person who did it a warm feeling for a short time. It might also do untold harm." Warm feeling? Only 'might' do untold harm?

Perhaps most telling of all, in terms of clarity about their objectives, methods, and hidden agenda, is this extract from the Guardian's report:

Mr Hart then went on to spell out the strategy. "It would be much cleverer if we never mentioned hunting at all ... We've got to go into these constituencies campaigning on health, education, crime."

In short, it's a clear declaration that these one issue campaigners should avoid all mention of their core issue, but instead pretend to be interested in more general questions. And it provides further evidence for the view held by many local Conservatives that their party has been infiltrated and taken over by single-issue campaigners. Entryism used to be a problem for the Labour Party; but it seems that it's the Tories who are the victims these days.

It means that we have a Conservative Party largely financed from the profits of the sort of activity which has brought the world's banking systems to the verge of collapse, and a candidate who seems to consider that issues relating to health, education, and crime are relevant primarily as a ruse for hiding the real agenda. The hidden agenda behind all of this is the repeal of the Hunting Act, but those involved are doing their utmost to avoid discussing this objective with those whose votes they seek.

Now, as I said earlier, none of this is actually illegal under current rules. Some might think that it should be illegal for an organisation to campaign semi-secretly in an election whilst doing what they can to conceal what they are doing and why; but as things stand, it seems that it is not. However, for me, being entirely legal is not at all the same thing as being entirely honest with the voters.

Tally Ho!

Tweet As I noted previously, I couldn't immediately see an obvious reason why a New York based hedge fund would suddenly decide to donate £40,000 to the Conservatives in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. It seemed a very odd connection to me.

It has been hard to establish much by way of hard information about the company concerned, Christofferson, Robb. Like all companies in their line of business, they tend to secrecy. Even their web site provides only a single page of information – and doesn't say a lot – unless you have a username and password.

However, I have established that the company was founded in 2002 by Richard Robb and one Johan Christofferson. Now someone called Johan Christofferson was, until recently, one of the hunt masters at the Isle of Wight Hunt. Could this possibly be the same person? It's not exactly a common name.

If it is, it would explain much. The Conservative candidate for this constituency is currently the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, committed to repealing the laws on hunting. Putting all of this together would mean, of course, that the Tory campaign in this constituency is being bankrolled by a former huntmaster using profits from a hedge fund which short sells shares in financial institutions and deals in the sort of mortgage-based securities which have been such a major factor in the recent financial turmoil.

It would also fit with the persistent rumours within the Tory camp locally that the party has been taken over by a group obsessed with a single issue – hunting.

Countryside Front?

Tweet It's natural enough that, when they need help, people turn first to their elected representatives. The meeting at Llanboidy last Friday duly included a top table with 10 people on it:- the Chair, two people from the post office, one from Postwatch, the local MP, the local ward councillor, three AM's - and the Countryside Alliance. I had been told in advance that candidates such as myself would not be given a platform, which was a perfectly fair and reasonable decision, given that the main purpose of the meeting was to hear local views. Sometimes, people can have more than enough of politicians!

However, surprise, surprise, the Tory candidate popped up on the platform after all – as the representative of the Countryside Alliance. Some of his comments were overtly party political, and he was clearly working closely with the official Conservative spokesperson at the meeting.

I'm sure that he would argue that there is a degree of crossover between the views of the Alliance and those of the Conservative party. But if people were to believe that the Alliance is little more than a Conservative front organisation locally, it would utterly discredit the organisation of which he is the highly paid Chief Executive (£100,000 according to the 2005 financial accounts). And I wonder how supporters of the organisation, who come from a range of backgrounds, would feel if they thought that their membership fees and donations were being used to pay someone to campaign for election as a Tory candidate?

A Conservative Obsession

Tweet On Friday, I met with a couple of local animal aid activists, who wanted to know my views on a range of issues associated with the Hunting Act. As a candidate, I get a range of invitations to discuss specific issues with all sorts of groups, and always try and oblige.

Hunting is an issue which can be difficult for candidates in elections. Both sides of the argument hold strong and passionate views, and the gap is not an easy one to bridge. My response on issues like this one is simply to state what I think. I know that I can never please everyone, so I just try and give people information on my views, and let them make their own judgement. Some will agree with me; others will not. And there are differences of opinion within all parties, as well as between parties.

On this particular issue, my position is a very simple one. I do support measures to allow the control of wildlife, particularly in support of agriculture, and I do support the killing of animals for food. I do not support the hunting and killing of wild animals purely for 'sport', and I think that whatever methods we use to catch and kill animals should be as humane as possible.

Hunting is likely to be made something of an issue in this constituency come the General Election, of course, not least because the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance is the Tory candidate. (Although, for some reason, he chooses not to make mention of that rôle on his election material, despite it carrying a salary of around £100,000 a year. He prefers to describe himself as a former chartered surveyor. Quite curious really). And, of course, Cameron has said (as Evidently Chickentown posted, although the blog seems to have completely disappeared) that if he is elected, he will hold a vote on repeal of the act. Inevitably the anti-hunting lobby will also therefore concentrate a certain amount of their effort on the constituency as a result, so, as I said, it will be an issue.

In the series of questions that I was asked, one in particular stands out for me as being a very good question indeed, and one on which I can only guess as to the correct answer:

“As the Countryside Alliance (CA) states that more people are attending hunts but are operating within the law, hunting jobs have not been lost, horses and dogs have not been put down, in your opinion since the 2004 Hunting Act why does it appear to you that the Conservative Party and the CA wishes to repeal the Act and what are the hunts now missing that they wish to repeal the 2004 Hunting Act?”

Indeed. I don’t know why the Tories are so obsessed with the issue. Even their candidate has himself said that there are 1001 more important issues to the countryside. I for one will be concentrating on the top few of those, rather than on number 1002!