The political philosophy of the two main parties is much the same on most issues. But the one major difference lies in their attitudes as to what constitutes cruelty. And there is absolutely no doubt that one of the first priorities of a future Conservative Government under David Cameron would be the repeal of the 2004 Hunting Act.

It may be true that this Act is seriously flawed, and has been ignored with impunity by the hunting fraternity while the police have been reluctant to enforce it, but that is no reason to remove it from the statute book. What is required is amendment and enforcement, not repeal.

At the election and in the weeks leading up to it, there will be thousands of blood sports supporters, under the auspices of a group called Vote OK, working the length and breadth of the UK to guarantee the return to Parliament of pro-hunt MPs.

They will lack the honesty to knock on doors and plead with residents to vote for their chosen candidate because he or she will bring back stag hunting, fox hunting or hare coursing. They will lack the honesty to hand out leaflets making it clear that this is their top priority.

In previous elections we have seen the depth of dishonesty displayed by the instructions given to these foot sloggers not to wear hunting gear or badges and, if visiting urban housing estates, not to use the 4x4s bedecked with Countryside Alliance stickers. This is the politics of fraud.

While it is certainly true that the repeal of the Hunting Act is not a major issue in the grand sweep of British politics, it is vitally important that we keep the Act, for to do otherwise will usher in an age of self-regulated cruelty by the hunting lobby that no future government of any colour will ever touch again.

There are many people who will say that there are many major issues facing this country but blood sports is not one of them. To some degree I can understand this argument, for as someone who has spent 30 years in mental health social work and watched the gradual dismantling and privatisation of what was once a first-rate service to something that now resembles a profit-driven lottery, the return of stag hunting or hare coursing could appear a trivial matter.

Sadly, the virtual destruction of the mental health services that I have spent so many years in was undertaken by both Labour and Conservative governments whose policies hardly differed, as they do not on so many issues from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the environment and education. Only on the subject of animal cruelty does there still appear to be a major policy divide.

Even here it could be argued that, in the main, Labour politicians have paid only lip service to this with their broken promises on so many issues concerning animal welfare, coupled with the passing of a virtually unenforceable Hunting Act.

The failure of Labour to keep promises was born more of over-ambition, ineptitude and fear of the economic and social power commanded by proponents of animal abuse – be it science, industry, or blood sports – rather than any intentional promotion of cruelty. But a total failure to appreciate the tenacity and fanaticism of their opponents was another of its failings.

For instance, while the passing of the 2004 Act was the culmination of a desire to stop one aspect of animal cruelty, the excellent self-promotional abilities of the blood sports lobby has enabled the issue to now be viewed by the public as a class-motivated attack against a misunderstood minority, borne of urban intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and revenge for the closure of the mines. Meanwhile the hunters themselves are perceived as rural 'freedom fighters' in the vanguard of the fight to defend civil liberties. All this flies in the face of a judgement in December 2009 from the European Court of Human Rights, following a case brought by the Countryside Alliance, which stated that "the hunting community could not be regarded as an ethnic or national minority" and whose activities had been ended by a "ban designed to eliminate the hunting and killing of animals for sport in a manner causing suffering and being objectionable".

I have to admit that there is little to distinguish the thinking of the two main political parties and it would seem to matter little who runs the country. But on the issue of animal abuse I can see a difference. For me the people who make the laws which dominate every aspect of my daily life must not be people whose prime recreational pastime is tormenting and killing less fortunate sentient creatures for amusement, or those who support them.

So maybe at the next election, instead of voting in favour of the politician who offers to give the biggest tax break along with the usual raft of promises, perhaps we should give a thought to the candidate whose views on animal welfare offers a voice to less fortunate creatures who don't have one.