MPs back ban on wild animals in circuses

No 10 humiliated after granting MPs a free vote midway through the debate.

It's been an extraordinary afternoon in the Commons, where MPs have been debating Tory MP Mark Pritchard's backbench motion banning the use of wild animals in circuses. The government opposes a ban on the grounds that it could face a face a legal challenge under the EU services directive and David Cameron imposed a three-line whip on the vote earlier today.

But remarkably, midway through the debate, the government performed a U-turn and agreed to give MPs a free vote. Given that 199 members have signed an Early Day Motion supporting a ban there's now a strong chance of the bill passing.

In his extraordinary opening speech, Pritchard accused Downing Street and the whips of "bullying" him and revealed that he was offered a job in return for calling off the debate.

He said:

It has been in interesting last few days. If I offered to amend my motion or drop my motion or not call a vote on this motion... I was offered reward, an incentive. It was a pretty trivial job as most of the ones I have had until at least probably 30 minutes from now are.It has been in interesting last few days.

But I was offered incentive and reward on Monday, then it was ratcheted up to last night when I was threatened. I had a call from the prime minister's office directly, and I was told unless I withdraw this motion, that the prime minister himself said that he would look upon it very dimly indeed.

Well I have a message for the whips and for the prime minister of our country, and I didn't pick a fight with the prime minister of our country, but I have a message: I may just be a little council house lad from a very poor background, but that background gives me a backbone, it gives me a thick skin and I am not going to be kowtowed by the whips on an issue that I feel passionately about. We need a generation of politicians with spine, not jelly."

Why the government chose to impose a three-line whip remains a mystery. A vote in favour of a ban would not have compelled it to introduce legislation. As for Pritchard, the secretary of the 1922 committee, he may have just written his own political suicide note but he has won the respect of all sides of the House this evening.

Update: MPs have just voted in favour of a ban. The government has been defeated as well as discredited.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood