AT the Labour conference in 2000, a tub-thumping John Prescott said: "I tell you this, every time I see the Countryside Alliance I redouble my determination to vote in the House of Commons to abolish fox hunting for ever."

According to those close to the Deputy Prime Minister, he may be about to deliver a similar message to the party's spring conference in Manchester this weekend.

The mood is certainly right after a week of bitter exchanges between MPs and Peers, most notably on plans for all-postal voting in Yorkshire and the Government's flagship constitutional reforms.

The upper chamber's continued opposition to postal voting in the June 10 Euro elections has certainly annoyed Ministers - especially Mr Prescott.

He is pinning his hopes on switching from the ballot box to the postage stamp to avoid a poor turnout - and possibly an electoral mauling.

Mr Prescott also almost certainly finds the prospect of being forced to drop plans affecting both his own department and constituency (Hull) too much to stomach.

But it is the Lords' decision to kick the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor and establishment of a Supreme Court into the long-grass of a select committee that has caused most upset.

Unelected Peers have denied the Commons the chance to debate legislation which would have "strengthened our democracy and would have protected and enhanced the independence of the judiciary."

They had not pulled such a stunt since the Hare Coursing Bill in 1975, said a fuming Department for Constitutional Affairs spokesman.

So what better way to take revenge than by threatening to re-introduce last year's failed Bill to ban hunting?

Originally, it had been expected around Easter time - giving Labour MPs a morale boost as they prepared to go door-knocking for the Euro poll.

Then it was rumoured the legislation would not be seen until November. Now the mood has changed again.

As one anti-hunt MP told me this week: "Now is the time to stuff it in. I would certainly be up for it.

"Most of us would be, given the way the Lords have been behaving."

The move would inevitably attract cries of "political opportunism" - the very charge the Government made against Tory Peers (including the frail Margaret Thatcher) who turned up to ensure the ambush on the Constitution Reform Bill was a success.

But it would certainly get the Lords thinking that, after an uneasy truce lasting almost seven years, the Ministers may finally have had enough.

The Government could - in theory - re-introduce the Hunting Bill in the Commons, get the overwhelming support of MPs for a total ban, send it to the upper chamber to be inevitably rejected, then ram it through using the Parliament Act.

This could be backed by threats that they are, after all, forging ahead with plans to abolish the last 92 remaining hereditary peerages.

And the introduction of 20 or 30 new "people's peers" - the majority of them Labour supporters - would put noble lordships further on edge.

This is not to say the Government will actually go through with this scenario - even though it would finally give backbenchers something to grin about.

But starting to talk about going "nuclear" on the subjects Peers truly hold dear - their own jobs and hunting foxes - may re-focus a few minds.

And this may, in turn, make them far more amenable to compromise on postal voting and a new supreme court.

Over to you, Mr Prescott.

Updated: 10:38 Friday, March 12, 2004