New Chair of the Board of Trustees at the League Against Cruel Sports
A Study in Political Amnesia
In the grand theatre of British politics, where memory seems as malleable as plasticine and accountability as sturdy as a sandcastle at high tide, we find ourselves confronted with a curious case of political amnesia. Enter Dan Norris, former Labour MP and now, in a twist that would make Orwell’s Ministry of Truth blush, the new Chair of the Board of Trustees for the League Against Cruel Sports.
Oh, the irony! A man who once couldn’t quite remember his own voting record on the Iraq War inquiry is now tasked with leading an organisation dedicated to exposing and combating cruelty. One must wonder: will he approach animal welfare with the same selective recollection he applied to his political past?
Let’s rewind to 2021. There’s Norris, campaigning for Metro Mayor for the West of England, faced with the ghost of votes past. When confronted about his support for the Iraq War1, he offers us this gem of political doublespeak:
“With the benefit of 100 per cent hindsight, we would all make different decisions on an awful lot of things.”
Ah yes, the old “hindsight is 20/20” defence. A classic move in the politician’s playbook of deflection. But wait, there’s more! When pressed about voting against an inquiry into the war, Norris boldly declares:
“No, well you say obviously, actually that’s not correct, I’ve never voted about not having an inquiry.”
Never voted against an inquiry? Really, Mr. Norris? Let’s consult the oracles at TheyWorkForYou2, shall we? What do we find? A veritable conga line of ‘No’ votes stretching from 2003 to 2008. Vote after vote, Norris stood firm against independent committees, select committees, and even the very principle of holding an inquiry. It’s a record so consistent, it’s almost admirable – if it weren’t so damning.
But lo and behold, in June 2009, a miracle occurs! Norris votes in favour of an inquiry. What changed? The political winds? The public mood? Or perhaps it was just time to rewrite history.
This, dear readers, is the man now entrusted with leading the charge against animal cruelty. A man who, when confronted with his political past, chose to rewrite it rather than own it. One must ask: is this the kind of leadership the League Against Cruel Sports needs? A captain who can’t – or won’t – read his moral compass?
What insights does this give us into Norris’s character? Let’s break it down:
- Selective Memory Syndrome: Norris seems to suffer from a peculiar form of amnesia that conveniently erases inconvenient truths. Will he apply this same selective recall to the plight of hunted animals?
- The Chameleon Complex: From war hawk to animal welfare champion – Norris’s political evolution is nothing if not spectacular. But is it genuine growth or merely opportunistic shape-shifting?
- The Accountability Allergy: When faced with his voting record, Norris chose denial over accountability. A concerning trait for someone tasked with holding others to account for their actions against animals.
- The Transparency Paradox: How can we trust a leader to champion transparency in animal welfare when he can’t be transparent about his own past?
As Norris takes the helm at the League Against Cruel Sports, we’re left with a smorgasbord of questions:
- Will he approach fox hunting with the same zeal he once reserved for dodging Iraq War inquiries?
- Can a man who struggled to confront his own political past effectively confront those who perpetrate cruelty against animals?
- Will the League’s strategies be as flexible as Norris’s recollection of his voting record?
In the end, we’re left with a paradox wrapped in an enigma, sprinkled with a hefty dose of political irony. Dan Norris, the man who couldn’t quite remember voting against inquiries into human suffering, is now charged with inquiring into animal suffering.
One can only hope that in his new role, Norris will develop a sudden and acute allergy to doublespeak, a newfound passion for transparency, and a miraculous ability to confront uncomfortable truths head-on. For the sake of the animals he’s now pledged to protect, let’s hope his moral compass has been recalibrated and his memory sharpened.
But if history is any guide, we’d be wise to keep a watchful eye on this political chameleon. After all, in the world of Dan Norris, today’s firmly held conviction might just be tomorrow’s conveniently forgotten vote.
