Labour appears determined to press ahead with a ban on foxhunting before the general election. In order to get the measure on to the statute books, a Bill would have to be introduced in July, in the last week before the summer recess, or at the very latest when MPs return for the ten-day spillover period in September. A hunting ban was not included in the list of measures outlined in last year’s Queen’s Speech, but the Prime Minister told the Commons that the Government would “resolve the issue in this Parliament”, a pledge which left open the possibility that the search for a ban might be abandoned.

The vagueness was of a piece with the whole sorry saga of trying to ban hunting with hounds. It drifted chaotically through Labour’s first term and was hedged in the 2001 manifesto with the promise that MPs would have an early opportunity for a free vote, and ministers would then look at how any disagreement could be resolved. That became watered down to a messy compromise on “regulation”, rather than outright criminalisation, which was then rejected by the Commons, ran into further trouble in the Lords and eventually found itself abandoned by the Government for lack of time.

Tony Blair’s thought processes on the issue have been as tortuous as the passage of the Bill. The Prime Minister, initially reluctant to impose a ban, has nonetheless allowed measures to lurch back and forth through Parliament, absenting himself from votes on occasion, before supporting, without conviction, the compromise on regulation which was rejected by his MPs.

At times of low morale among Labour activists, the idea of a hunt ban has tended to resurface. Now, as Labour confronts the consequences of last week’s dismal election results, in large part due to the disaffection of traditional supporters over Iraq, MPs are looking to the prospect of a ban again. The politics is not hard to discern. Were a Bill to be introduced in September, it would rally activists’ morale for the party conference at which third-term measures are due to be unveiled. Assuming that a ban is opposed by the House of Lords, the Government could then use the Parliament Act to force it on to the statute books just in time for a spring election, sending activists out with a spring in their step in the hunt for voters.

Despite the obvious tactical advantages, ministers should think very carefully before setting the hounds on this course once again. It has been more than seven years since Labour came to office promising to allow a vote on a hunt ban. In the interim period, during which the prospect of prohibition has waxed and waned, there has been little pressure beyond that from Labour traditionalists for hunting to be banned. Those protesting most vociferously have been supporters of hunting, whose threatened civil disobedience is no reason to recommend them.

If the case for banning hunting with hounds has not been made to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction in the past seven years, there is no sudden real reason for change. Given that Mr Blair backed a compromise last year which would have seen hunting regulated but not forbidden, it will be hard for him to justify with credibility his sudden conviction of the need for a total ban. The pursuit would be time-consuming, energy-sapping and divisive at a time when ministers should have bigger game to hunt.

Liberties should not be curtailed without the strongest and clearest arguments for their suppression. One need not be a supporter of hunting to oppose a ban, just as one need not smoke, or even approve of the habit, to be prepared to defend others’ right to do so. Even those unfamiliar with the scent of a fox (or a cigarette) can smell this political rat.