THE Northern Echo always has plenty of opinions about all manner of topics. Every morning in this column, we inflict them upon our readers.

For instance, we find it cynical of Labour to dredge up the issue of fox-hunting so close to an election when its traditional supporters have grown so uninterested in its progress that they may not bother to vote for it. Fox-hunting, though, is an issue bound to energise those apathetic supporters, particularly as Tory backwoodsmen in the House of Lords will overturn any ban. There is nothing more likely to smoke out the Labour vote than the sight of a few privileged toffs disenfranchising the people's party.

This is cynical because fox-hunting is not a class issue. It is not even an issue of country versus town. And it is certainly not an issue about how many jobs will be lost if it is banned.

It boils down to an individual's view of morality, of where that individual's conscience draws the line about what is, and what is not, cruel. And in the case of fox-hunting, it is a fine line. It is nowhere near as clear cut and abhorrent as badger-baiting or cock-fighting; nowhere near as demonstrably uncivilising as capital punishment.

But this is where we have another complaint against Labour. When its leading members drew up the 1997 General Election manifesto four years ago, they clearly felt it was a moral outrage. That is why they wrote in the manifesto: "We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation."

As it crossed their moral line, it was their duty to do something about it. And with such a huge majority, they could have done anything they liked about it. That they haven't until now - when they needed to energise their support - is indicative of their major failing. Whenever they have come up against some vicious opponents - be they the fuel lobby, the hospital consultants lobby, the countryside lobby or the anti-euro lobby - they have shilly-shallied around them.

This, though, is the ultimate shilly-shally because the Government knows that whatever measure passed by this House of Commons will never be en-acted. It knows that the Lords will ensure that time runs out and an election is called.

But at least the Government offered a free vote, acknowledging that this is a question of conscience.

And in all conscience, on this moral issue where the line is so painfully thin, The Northern Echo can offer no opinion.

Dispassionately looking at their policies and performance, we can judge whether Conservative or Labour is better at a time of an election, from our point of view.

But we would never dare to preach to our readers about religion, to judge whether Catholicism is better than Protestantism, nor even about their football teams, whether Sunderland are better than Newcastle.

And so, in our opinion, it is up to each individual reader's conscience to decide whether they support a ban on fox-hunting.