Labour's rural problem.
| Author | Drew, David |
| Position | LABOUR AND THE COUNTRYSIDE |
Throughout its history, Labour has been driven by and focused on industrial and urban concerns. Its distinctly limited relationship with the countryside is a product of the party's collective identity and the way that this identity has been shaped by an emotional commitment to a particular vision of the past. Memories of heroic, traditional, industrial working-class struggles have been central to the party's understanding of itself and have shaped Labour's response to socioeconomic issues. (1) Labour's rural heritage, meanwhile, has frequently been reworked and reimagined in terms more conducive to the party's industrially oriented nostalgia. In practice, Labour's mnemonically rooted industrial identity has operated as a strong gravitational force that has drawn the party's historical understanding of itself and its contemporary trajectory towards the urban, rather than the rural. When attempts have been made to challenge dominant industrial narratives of Labour's past, they have, on the whole, been unsuccessful.
Despite the party's limited engagement with rural politics, there have been occasions, most notably after the electoral landslides of 1945 and 1997, when Labour has managed to break out of its urban heartlands and gain the support of a significant proportion of rural voters. Yet, as this article will discuss in the context of Labour's 1997 victory, electoral advances have tended to be the product of 'a rising tide raising all boats' rather than a concerted attempt to target rural seats. It is difficult, with little historical supporting evidence available, to demonstrate a causal link between policy reorientation and increased electoral gains in rural areas. Nevertheless, this article argues that a shift in the party's programmatic commitments towards a position more sensitive to rural issues can broaden the party's appeal. If it is to win again, Labour must become more outward-looking. It must break free from the confines of its restrictive historical identity. This process should include taking rural politics seriously.
This article evaluates the rural record of Labour in government between 1997 and 2010, the development of policy since 2010, and, finally, the challenges Labour will face in the post-Brexit era. Labour's recent history, we argue, provides lessons that can be used to guide future policy. Above all, we suggest that a significant opportunity now exists for Labour to adopt a social democratic approach to rural affairs that draws lessons from, builds on and enhances aspects of Labour's post-1997 legacy in rural areas. In using the term 'social democratic', we recognise both its contested nature and the fact that it remains comparatively underdeveloped as a framework in the field of rural studies. However, a social democratic approach to the countryside is likely to comprise either some or all of the following features: a commitment to targeting rural inequality and poverty; a belief in the need to ensure greater equality of opportunity and access in rural areas; an aim to encourage a spirit of mutualism and cooperation in rural communities; and a desire to redistribute power away from elites and towards local rural populations and non-elite groupings.
Labour and rural politics, 1997-2010
The period that immediately followed the 1997 general election was a critical historical juncture in the relationship between the party and rural politics. (2) Due to the unprecedented number of Labour MPs who were elected in rural constituencies, the sheer scale of Labour's victory represented a challenge to Conservative hegemony in the countryside. Although limited in scope, the party's election manifesto had, at least, acknowledged the need for a degree of rural specificity in policy-making: 'Labour recognises the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas'. (3) However, upon Labour's ascension to power, change was slow, and hindered by the incoming government's pre-election promise to impose a moratorium on public spending for two years. This meant that, initially, little rural policy of note materialised. From 1999 onwards, however, Labour began to adopt a much more active approach to the countryside. The reasons for this shift were threefold.
Firstly, Labour's increased interaction with rural matters was fuelled by the changing representative basis of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The large number of Labour backbenchers in rural areas offered a way to demonstrate a new-found authority in the countryside. In turn, these backbenchers acted as an organised body that exerted pressure on the government's approach to rural matters. In November 1997, the Rural Group of Labour MPs was formed in parliament, and by 1999 it contained 97 backbench MPs. This group published the Rural Audit report, which, alongside the Performance and Innovation Unit's Rural Economies report, influenced the ideas that were contained in the 2000 Rural White Paper--a document described as 'the high point of new Labour's ambitions for rural policy.' (4) The Rural White Paper adopted a broadly social democratic approach; it noted that: 'Government has a responsibility to set the best possible framework in which our countryside can survive and thrive', and it instigated the introduction of a number of significant policies that included rural proofing. (5) More generally, rural Labour MPs were able to wield a level of political influence by shaping the evolution of legislative, institutional, funding and system changes; acting as a conduit for dialogue between the government and a wide range of rural organisations; and developing a discourse on rural matters in Parliament through debates, questions and committee activity. Outside of the immediate machinations of government, they also became an effective channel for wider party opinion on rural affairs.
Secondly, Labour's engagement with rural politics was also the product of a pragmatic reaction to external events and pressure. The 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak, together with the hunting ban and Countryside Alliance mobilisations against the government, brought aspects of rural life to the forefront of the political agenda. In both instances, the Labour leadership clearly understood the need to reposition the party in order to counter claims that it was hostile to rural interests. Moreover, events conspired to act as a catalyst for institutional change and restructuring. In particular, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's perceived mishandling of FMD hastened its demise and led to the establishment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DEFRA's creation represented a formal recognition of the importance of rural affairs, but it also had a programmatic significance that went beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
