As the clock's ticking towards the general elections, the debate over the fox hunting ban (one of the issues that took centre stage in the early Noughties) is making an unexpected comeback.
On Thursday, an article by Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs Hilary Benn accused David Cameron's Conservatives of going against the will of at least 75% of public opinion as the Tories prepare to repeal the ban if they win the elections.
Echoing Cameron's own declarations that "the hunting ban is a bad piece of legislation", the party's "animal welfare spokesman", Andrew Rosindell, has allegedly pledged to have the repeal of the ban featured amongst the priorities for a Conservative government.
To many, fox hunting could prove the ultimate test over whether the Conservatives have truly moved forward or not under David Cameron. It is no coincidence that, in spite of very aggressive campaign tactics, the pro-hunting lobby has completely failed to convince the general public.
First, like Benn notes, "they tried to pit country against town", even though opposition to fox hunting is overwhelming in rural areas as well.
Second, they perpetrated the notion that the ban is "an unsubtle excuse for class war", as Catherine Bennett argues in today's "New" Observer, a claim embarrasingly at odds with the fact that so-called "lower classes' activities" such as dog fighting or badger baiting are completely illegal.
Third, there was the myth that fox hunting acts as pest control against a "large and unmanaged fox population", stopping short of saying that a ban would pave the way for foxes taking over the country, perhaps with some sort of socialist coup d'etat. Somehow that never materialised.
Four, they said (and still do) that the ban is not a priority and that Labour should worry about more important stuff - in which case why did they bother with all the hysterical demonstrations?
Finally, the pro-hunting lobby whipped up fears that a ban would cause massive job losses in the countryside and cripple rural economy. As if the risk of redundancy notices handed out to hangmen was the reason to retain capital punishment.
Either way, no significant impact on rural economy was recorded when Scotland banned hunting in 2002 or when the same took place in England and Wales in 2004 (which also outlawed hare coursing and stag hunting).
Evidence suggests that, while not perfect, the current legislation is certainly a step closer to civilisation than the old status quo where foxes and hares were chased for miles and their life ended when their organs were ripped to shreds.
In the space of five years, David Cameron has managed to perform one about face after the other: on Nelson Mandela, on the Minimum Wage, on the homophobic Section 28 and on same-sex civil partnerships.
Now he's got to realise there's one more to do: only five years ago he voted against the hunting ban. He may as well remember that, quite simply, animal cruelty is something Britain's voters don't like.