CRITICS of "new" Labour have two common complaints.

They point out it is always somebody else's fault when things go wrong. And that the party leadership lacks the conviction to stand up for what it believes in, preferring a messy compromise instead.

Fox hunting and special constables this week gave us shining examples of both.

Few can forget Tony Blair's earnest, live TV pledge to ban a pursuit abhorrent to most of his 410 Parliamentary colleagues.

But the Prime Minister, whose mind is never far away from the next General Election, has since gone cold on the idea.

He fears a backlash if he bans it, and a battering if he doesn't - so he forced one of his ministers, Alun Michael, to come up with the most shameful "fudge" possible.

A system which bans stag hunting and hare coursing, but allows fox hunting to continue where "twin tests of preventing cruelty but recognising some hunting was needed for pest control" can be met.

Mr Michael was even instructed to wash his hands of taking a final decision on whether these tests had been satisfied, instead preferring to pass the buck to a registrar.

And then, when the inevitable appeal is made against the registrar's decision by a hunt which has been refused a licence or protesters furious one has been allowed, a tribunal.

(How the registrar or tribunal are supposed to decide what is cruel is an interesting point in itself, since foxes are unable to tell us their preferred method of death, but let us save that argument for another day.)

To the countryside, this "shabby compromise" is clearly unacceptable - as it creates great uncertainty and is seen as an attempt to introduce a ban through the "back door".

Pro-hunters rightly argue that if Labour believes in a ban, they should stand up and say so - and risk the electoral consequences come 2005.

But it is the leadership's treatment of its own MPs that is even more reprehensible. On the face of it, they are promising MPs a free vote.

Yet behind the scenes, the whips' office is making all sorts of threats in a bid to persuade them not to gut the Bill and turn it into an outright ban.

Ministers are being told that if they have any problems with the legislation they should "take them up with the Chief Whip".

And their poor Parliamentary aides, most of whom have promised to deliver an outright ban to their constituents, are being warned their careers are on the line.

"Back the Bill or forget ever being a junior minister," is the dark message coming from the Whips' office.

What a choice this is. Ditch your principles, or see your hopes of joining Government wrecked.

Equally absurd is the way "new" Labour plays the blame game.

The number of special constables has been falling alarmingly - in North Yorkshire they are down from 337 when Labour came to power in 1997 to 185 in March this year - and the Tories have been seeking an explanation.

In a Commons exchange on Monday, junior minister Michael Wills sought to give one. He said: "The reason for the fall in numbers is a long standing one, which began many years ago.

"In many ways it can be traced back to 1945, and there are many complex reasons..." At this stage Hansard, the official Parliamentary record, records "Laughter".

Tory Sir Patrick Cormack spotted his chance, asking Mr Wills: "Who bears the greatest responsibility for the Honourable Gentleman's failure, Atlee or Thatcher?"

Clem Atlee. Now there was a Prime Minister who had principles and was not afraid to stand up for them.

Updated: 11:52 Friday, December 06, 2002