It is somewhat encouraging to see the very slight reduction in animal procedures of around 1% compared with the previous year, to just over 3.6 million in 2009. Some 3.5 million animals were used for the first time in procedures commencing in 2009 – also a fall of 1%. (Some animals are used repeatedly, resulting in a greater number of procedures than animals).

However, this must be kept in perspective. This fall followed six previous annual increases, and remains the second highest total since the current method of recording was introduced in 1987 – more than 20 years ago.
  
It was particularly encouraging to see an overall reduction in the use of primates by 7%, although new world primate use increased very substantially. The advanced emotional, psychological and social capacities of primates markedly increase their risks of suffering within laboratory environments and procedures. They have advanced capacities to understand and remember that certain people, tools or procedures are likely to cause pain and distress, and their ability to anticipate future aversive experiences is likely to compound the distress such events may cause. Disturbingly, around 30% of all EU primate experiments occur within the UK.
  
Even more disturbing was the steadily increasing use of genetically altered animals, which exceeded the number of non-GM animals used for the first time. 52 % of procedures involved animals that were genetically altered, of which a large proportion were used for breeding.  The production of genetically modified strains involves surgical procedures and significant physiological challenges. It is also an inherently inefficient process, frequently resulting in a high proportion of discarded animals, with the welfare of the survivors more likely to be adversely affected than for non-GM strains.

Animals Count calls on the Government to use scientific evidence, demonstrating the poor predictability of animal models for human toxicological outcomes and medical progress, to ban invasive use of animals in research, testing and education.

It is hard to imagine many citizens, whether in the rural or the urban areas actually believe we need to hunt foxes in order to keep them “ under control”, as Cameron has stated. The traditional practice has been to allow the fox to live if he has “gone to ground” and this practice seems to be followed in America where foxes were imported into that country for the purpose of establishing the sport. In Britain, in the 18^th Century when the sport as we know it now was developed, foxes were imported by the thousands from Europe in order to provide animals in sufficient numbers to satisfy the aristocratic hunting fraternity.

The argument that foxes are “pests” that should be controlled by the human population is further undermined when defenders such as those of the Countryside Alliance insist that hunting with horses and hounds is an important part of the rural culture and the rural economy would suffer if the activity were stopped. The reality is that “hunting” has actually increased, but that increase is likely to be due to more people taking up drag hunting, where the dogs follow a deliberate false (and non-fox like) scent laid along a pre-set trail. These drag hunts are far safer for both horse and rider, as dangerous areas can be avoided, as well as areas where damage might occur to farms’ livestock or people’s pets.

Furthermore, the point Cameron makes that other methods used to kill foxes such as shooting, using snares or gassing , are more cruel is without any merit. One cannot justify one type of cruel activity by stating other methods are more cruel. Animals Count is not convinced, nor are most other people, that the fox is killed quickly once the dogs get to it.  If foxes are killing one’s animals, other methods of prevention or deterrence should be employed, such as fencing or keeping guard animals.

Although the composition of the present Parliament is quite different from when Labour was in power, Prime Minister Cameron and other conservative MPs should bear in mind the views of the great majority of their constituents. whose views on this issue are unlikely to be much changed since that first free vote in 2004 to bring about this important piece of legislation. This Act as it stands does not in fact ban the hunting or killing of wild mammals altogether as the exemptions contained in Schedule 1, “Exempt Hunting” are so broad that if an individual farmer or group of hunters wish to kill a particular animal, even with dogs (the Acts permits no more than 2 dogs to be used to flush out the quarry) it is possible to do so and still remain within the letter of the law. These exemptions should be amended to give greater protection to wild animals.

Finally, it cannot be acceptable that any nation that chooses to call itself advanced and civilised can defend as “culture” and a “sport”, an activity that causes distress, terror and suffering, to another living creature. In this regard, fox hunting is no different to bear baiting or dog fighting, and Animals Count urges all MPs to vote for the Hunting Act to remain in place.

While the surge to the right cannot be denied, it must be recognised that the Democrats 66 increased their number of seats from three to ten, and the Green Left party gained three seats and now also has ten seats.

The clearest conclusion is that voters were fed up with Christian politcs which only focused on protection of short-term human interests ahead of nature and the environment.

A coalition will be difficult, and fingers crossed it won’t be a coalition of VVD (right wing liberals), PVV (anti-islam party for freedom) and CDA (Christian Democrats) but rather a centrist (with Green Left) coalition.

While I am obviously shocked by the PVV victory, thank god for proportional representation in the Netherlands, and the chance for the Party for the Animals to continue their fantastic and extremely important work for animals, people and the environment. Not only within the Netherlands, but the party is an inspiration worldwide, as these topics affect us all.

We strongly urge the Government to rescind this thoroughly unnecessary and cruel policy of badger killing and instead demonstrate its alleged commitment to a “new” politics by resisting the unscientific lobbying pressure of the farming industry.

It is for the Government to act in accordance with its own fine-sounding words and respect the unambiguous evidence of the detailed scientific studies which have been undertaken showing no causal relationship between badger colonies and Bovine TB; and it is for the Government to respect the law and ensure that all wild badger populations remain protected by law. No exceptions should be made to this law simply to protect the alleged interests of the livestock industry, an industry which already receives very substantial financial subsidy from the public purse and which would be better advised to examine more critically the poor welfare and health support systems for animals on the country’s farms.

The 131-page 2010 Conservative manifesto pledged to “promote high animal welfare standards”, but few additional details were provided. Wildlife protection and habitat conservation are emphasised – particularly wildlife trafficking, whaling, ivory sales and the creation of marine conservation zones. While these issues are undoubtedly important, and while elephants and whales enjoy iconic status, some may consider that, in welfare terms, they pale into relative insignificance, compared to the welfare problems faced by nearly a billion UK farm animals.

The only details provided of any programme to address farm animal welfare is a commitment to a “carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of [bovine tuberculosis]”. The Conservatives have previously committed to culling badgers. Additionally, they promised to dedicate government time to providing a free parliamentary vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004. More positively, they stated their intention to work toward a reduction in scientific animal use, and to promote responsible pet ownership via codes of practice under the Animal Welfare Act, and through targeting of irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.

At the time of writing, neither animal welfare nor protection was included within the list of policy areas on the Conservative Party website. However, a booklet on farming (accessible from the “Countryside and Farming” section) includes some animal welfare policies. While primarily focused on the promotion and protection of British farming, the booklet states the Conservatives “remain committed to upholding and improving welfare standards” for farm animals. The party asserts its support for welfare reforms, such as the 2012 ban on conventional cages for laying hens, with the proviso that such standards are raised equally across the EU.

Significantly, it states its intention to work toward the inclusion of production standards within World Trade Organisation negotiations. To date, countries seeking to ban the importation of cruelly produced animal products have risked falling foul of free-trade agreements, and incurring severe financial penalties. Allowing such bans would be likely to significantly assist animal protection campaigns within the UK and abroad.

Most of the booklet, however, focuses on disease control among agricultural species. The Conservatives would develop an animal health policy in partnership with farmers and veterinarians, and would seek to share, with the farming industry, the responsibility and cost of tackling animal disease. They place particular emphasis on border controls. No obvious mention is made of the overwhelming majority of animal welfare policy areas, however, including most farmed species, long-distance animal transportation, religious slaughter, companion animals, animals in laboratories, and animals in sport and entertainment (including zoos and circuses).

Additional insights into Conservative policy on animal welfare were provided to us during a meeting with former MP Roger Gale, president of the Conservative Animal Welfare (CAW). Since 1994, CAW has offered a focal point for Conservative Party members interested in animal welfare. Its policies on animal welfare appear to have been provided by a veterinary advisor. A positive example is: “The conditions in which all farm animals are reared, grown and slaughtered should be considered, and particular attention should be given to stocking densities, transport and slaughter. Animals should always be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, and the means of slaughter should always cause as little psychological or physical trauma as possible. Where the means of slaughter is dictated by religious traditions, this should not be a valid argument to disregard trauma to the animals concerned.”

Additionally, CAW states that: “The Conservative Party is the first political party in the UK to designate a specific front-bench spokesman for animal welfare.” This was Andrew Rosindell MP, the former shadow home affairs minister, with special responsibility for animal welfare.

Other aspects may be considered disturbing. An example is the statement: “[It is a] biological fact that man is an omnivorous animal and, as such, needs to eat meat. It follows… that there is a need to farm, kill and eat other species for our own biological needs… A vegetarian diet… is not optimal for humans.” While this may once have been considered true, we believe this demonstrates ignorance of current nutritional knowledge. Balanced vegetarian diets are well established as offering the potential for significant health benefits. Ample published medical papers and the positions of relevant professional associations support this.

Another statement suggests: “If we did not rely on animal cultivation for a major food source then there would theoretically be no need for any other mammal to be preserved except for aesthetic purposes… It is easy to envisage a planet virtually devoid of other animals if they did not provide a biological advantage for us.” Statements such as this may be considered to demonstrate a lack of awareness of:
- the intrinsic value of other species and individuals, which provides a fundamental ethical basis for attempting to conserve them, and of considering their interests, independent of possible human benefit; and
- the ecological interdependence of most (if not all) species, and their role in supporting the planetary life-support systems on which we all depend – surely a planet “virtually devoid of other animals” would be similarly devoid of humans?

Additionally, CAW appears to be more interested in ensuring good welfare for laboratory animals, rather than in finding alternatives to their use: “We should be prepared to accept that it will not be possible to eliminate the use of live animals for the development and testing of some procedures, pharmaceuticals and equipment.”

CAW does not necessarily support additional regulation: “Over-enthusiastic regulation on research animal conditions does not always produce the best conditions for those animals.”

Roger Gale believed all major parties considered the big political issues to be the economy, health, education, defence and policing, and that voters would be unlikely to give much weight to animal issues. The impression given was that, in the current economic climate, animal welfare was likely to be a very low priority for any incoming government.

We regret the recent turn of events and hope that a possible change in electoral reform may help to finally make people’s vote count, and thereby ensure that animals count!

For Animals Count we can take great encouragement from our participation in the election process. No one had ever done this before in the UK and no other party has ever dared to step forward and offer a manifesto to the electorate that is so deep and so inclusive with a foundational focus on animal protection issues and embracing a whole range of social justice issues too.

We hold true to our beliefs that we are a Party for animals and people, and we know not only what we are standing against but also what we are standing for.

We have proven something very significant with our campaign. We have proven that we can more than “hold our own” when up against the “big parties” when taking part in hustings events, and we can offer a credible and effective campaign that generates significant and serious press interest.

Animals Count received positive and very useful coverage in the national press and on national television as well as reportage in the local press. This is something of which can be very proud. There were, literally, thousands of candidates taking part in the General Election, and the vast majority of them were not seen in the national press and were not seen on national television. We were!

We have proven that there is an “acceptable face” to animal protection campaigning. We know that there is (a very often unjustified) perception amongst many in the wider community that “animal rights” equates only to aggressive, antagonistic tactics, illegal actions and verbal abuse. But we have shown that the animal protection message is one that can be articulated positively and personably, with intelligence and supported by evidence, and thus is taken seriously by the media and reported in a favourable manner. This is an important step forward and its significance should not be underestimated.

We are greatly heartened by the many messages of support and encouragement we have received from across the country following the election result, and we give our sincere and profound thanks to everyone in the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury who had the courage and the conviction to offer their (extremely important) vote (a precious gift) to Animals Count.

It is a genuinely magnificent feeling to know that despite the best intentions of the “big three” that people are still prepared to resist their demands and vote according to what they know is right and represents real justice for all!

And so, our journey does not end of course with that election which was for us only our first step on a long road to freedom for all.

With your support, we will keep walking the way of truth and justice!

Whilst this result is a disappointment for us and at the lower end of our expectations we should not be too disheartened. We know that Animals Count offered a professional and positive campaign to the electorate, with the tremendous efforts of our small, volunteer team who gave up very considerable personal time to taking the message we offer out to the voters. We received a lot of encouragement and support on the streets and via messages and emails to the Animals Count website, and our membership has increased, but regrettably that local support did not translate into actual votes as people decided to vote tactically for the “big” parties, and this is something that was seen across the country and should not be perceived purely as a rejection of the Animals Count policies and objectives.

We should remember that we have only been in operation for three years and this was our first participation in a General Election. The Green Party has just achieved the great success of having their first MP (Caroline Lucas, Brighton) and we offer our sincere congratulations to them, but it has taken the best part of 30 years for that dream to come true, and so we must recognise that we (Animals Count) are still in the very early stages in our evolution as a political party in this country.

Everyone (including those regarded as the best and brightest and smartest pundits!) thought that this election would represent real political change and “other” parties would do really well (following on from the credit crunch, the expenses scandal, lobbygate et al) but in fact the British electorate, up and down the country, knew that it would be an extremely close contest. In the last days before the elections, the government and headlines screamed ‘Vote tactically’ and that is what everyone did, to either keep Labour or the Conservative Party out. This type of voting behaviour on this scale has not been seen before.

Despite the media’s insistence that the TV debates had “changed the game forever” and “talking up” the alleged “surge” in support for the Liberal Democrats and their leader, Nick Clegg, nothing has changed and no “surge” in support for the “third” party has been forthcoming – far from it, the Liberal Democrats have lost seats compared to 2005.

We should, therefore, examine the Animals Count result in light of this dramatic attempt to either keep Labour or the Tories out across the UK. Many people (if not a majority) must not have voted for their first preference. It is regrettable that there is still huge support for the “big two” despite the damage they have done to our economy, the environment and communities over recent decades. In addition, due to the recession, people probably also considered their own interests ahead of more sustainable environmental interests.

However, the media was sufficiently interested (we were mentioned in a BBC online article, Richard Deboo was interviewed on the BBC2 Daily Politics show and by the Telegraph, and there were articles about Animals Count in local newspapers and animal-related magazines). In the 2009 European Parliament elections, we received over 13,000 votes in the Eastern region, which shows that the public is interested in animal issues.

We would like to thank all of our supporters for their help, and for the many messages of encouragement and hope that we have received during our campaign. It is tremendously heartening to us to know that there are people out there who do care about more than their own narrow self-interest and do want to ensure that those millions of animals in our society, who are so utterly at our mercy, can be properly represented in our political system, and who are so determined to see that politics can and should have compassion at its heart.

We will keep fighting!

We know that the vote that we have is a precious gift handed down to us by our ancestors who strove and fought so valiantly to ensure that the vote can be ours.  We know how valuable it is.  We will not, therefore, just throw it out to anyone who demands it, and who will take it and abuse it and use it to satisfy only the needs of an elite few.  No, we know that we must use it wisely and offer our vote only to those we can trust and who will use the vote to offer a better future and a better world for everyone, including those who are least regarded, most vulnerable and utterly at our mercy – those animals in our world.

There are hundreds of millions if not billions of people across the globe who are desperate to have the opportunity that we have tomorrow – a simple but profoundly important act of being able to cast a vote.  There is power in our vote and there is power in the knowledge we have of what those so-called main political parties really stand for  – which is only more of the same that has caused so much damage in our society and harmed so many so much for decades.

We can use the precious gift of our vote to say “No!” to any more of any of the same and say a resounding, loud and heartfelt “Yes!” to something new, something positive, something that represents real justice and hope for all – and all it takes is a simple X next to the name of Animals Count…

It is time for a new way of doing things.  It is time for Animals Count.

We’ve had a terrific campaign with better, more extensive media coverage than we could have hope for and lots of words and emails of encouragement from people not only with the constituency of Islington South & Finsbury, but from across the country from people who are following our campaign with real interest.

All we need now is a good turnout on the day and the determination of the electorate to express their desire for other voices to be heard other than the prattle and babble of the “big” political parties, who are resolute in making sure that everything stays exactly the same after the election as it was before.

But we can make a difference.  We can use this election as our historic demonstration that we want more from our democracy (because we know we deserve better) than what is offer from the main parties.  We can show them that they will be challenged, that others will be heard, and we will have a new politics that represents real change and social justice and fairness for all.

All we need is courage.  All we need to do is to stand together and collectively resist the shrill insistence of the big parties that our vote must be a vote for one of them – it doesn’t have to be and we can prove it.  We can vote with our hearts and mark our X next to a name that has compassion at its heart, and that is Animals Count.

No other political party has a manifesto as deep, as wide-ranging and as shot through with the sense of true justice as the Animals Count manifesto.  We are utterly committed to justice for all and every vote we receive raises the volume of our voice and makes it possible for us to speak on behalf of all of those who are disadvantaged, vulnerable and ruthlessly ignored by the main political parties.  Every X next to our name is the proof that another politics is possible, that other voices will be heard and that we do care about the lives of all in our world.

We are the proof that politics can have a heart of compassion, and as a Candidate in the election I make no apology for saying that I care, I really care and that I really want to make a positive difference to the lives of those in society who are so desperately at our mercy and who deserve to be treated with respect and consideration.

It is not about power for its own sake, it is not about making a profit and protecting the wealth of the almost uncountably wealthy, it’s about giving a damn.  And we really give a damn.

With just a little courage we can resist those tired old parties who have nothing to offer anyone else but only something for themselves; with a little courage we can say goodbye to them and their old ways, and say yes to what is new, what is real and what will be a fresh and vital change for our world.

It is time for a new way of doing things.  It is time for Animals Count!

It’s a great testament to the Animals Count team that they’ve been out there every day, whatever the weather, wind, rain, it’s no matter, the team are out there making sure that we’re connecting with people and they get to hear about Animals Count and the great policies that we have.  I’ll be out on the streets too later today handing out leaflets – whatever we can do, however we can do it, the important thing is getting our message out there!

We’ve had great momentum throughout the campaign and the energy levels are still right up there because we know that we have something important to say, something that deserves to be heard, and the people in our constituency of Islington South & Finsbury have the right to know that there are real choices out there for them this time, that in this election their ‘X’ can be put next to a party that represents genuine change and a genuine commitment to fairness, decency and justice for all!