How Sir Keir Starmer’s relationship with the countryside turned sour and toxic - Tim Bonner
Turn back the clock two years and you'd be forgiven for thinking that Labour's relationship with the countryside was one of a blossoming romance. Sir Keir Starmer had promised to "roll up his sleeves" and renew "the bond of respect" between countryside and politicians. His overtures were well received - Labour made huge gains in rural areas, winning more than 100 seats in the countryside, some for the first time in history.
It's not difficult to see why so many rural people were persuaded to vote Labour. In the countryside, as everywhere else, people were looking for an alternative to the Conservatives and it seemed there was real reason to believe the Labour leader did care. In the run up to the General Election, he had written for Country Life, waxing lyrical about "the quiet, uncomplaining resilience and togetherness of the countryside", and recognising the problems created by the fact that “more and more decisions that affect communities are taken by people who not only live miles away, but also have little empathy for their challenges”.
He made history by being the first Labour leader to speak at the NFU conference, stating that Labour was "a changed party" that indeed does "care deeply about the countryside". He showed his understanding of many of the problems facing farmers, saying that "losing a farm is not like losing any other business - it can't come back".
Sadly however, it was no blossoming romance, but a relationship that would soon become soured and toxic. Rural communities were injured and cast aside by a barrage of policies that shortly followed. Just a few months later, the hated Family Farm Tax was announced. So much for sympathy for struggling farmers. Since then, we have seen huge hikes to taxes for rural businesses, as well as toxic culture war policies such as a clamp down on game shooting, and the proposed ban on trail hunting that has seen perhaps the greatest level of opposition to a Defra consultation in memory, with more than 91,000 people opposing the ban and a mass protest outside Defra just a couple of weeks ago.
It never needed to be this way. Many rural people took Sir Keir’s words at face value. It is hard to see what reason the government had for pursuing such attacks on rural communities. Policies like the Family Farm Tax provided a negligible gain for the Treasury, completely ruined Sir Keir’s reputation in the countryside, and wasted huge amounts of political capital. Facing enormous dissatisfaction within the Parliamentary Labour Party, he has had to announce his resignation.
The incoming government now faces a decision. Will the next Prime Minister, who seems almost certain now to be Andy Burnham, recognise the dissatisfaction of the millions of people who live in the countryside, upon whom more than 100 of his MPs depend for their support?
There are some promising signs. His comments about needing to revisit the Family Farm Tax and the increased taxes on pubs demonstrate his understanding of the mistakes previously made. But if Mr Burnham truly wishes to reset the relationship with the countryside, he needs to realise that he must go much further and actively work for rural people. Questions are already being asked about the land tax Mr Burnham has suggested he would introduce, and rural communities will be mistrustful of a Labour government until they see proof that that government works for them, not against them.
This week, in his first major speech since returning to Westminster, he outlined his plans for regional devolution. Will he then be recognising that rural communities, not Whitehall, are best placed to understand the myriad of issues that are facing them, and give them more of a role in decision making?
There are many rural Labour MPs who understand the issues facing rural communities well, and who could steer government policy in a direction that is positive for rural people, should they be appointed to ministerial positions in Defra. It would be a clear sign of the direction he intends to take the government’s rural policy, were he to do so.
If he revisits the Family Farm Tax and the increase in costs for rural businesses, he could undo some of the damage his predecessor has done. But he could go further. He could recognise the success of the overtures that Sir Keir made to the countryside before he became Prime Minister, and, unlike Sir Keir, actually deliver on them. Recognise that farms are not like other businesses, and so support them and help them to thrive. Recognise that so many of the decisions that affect rural communities are made by civil servants in London who have no sympathy or understanding of rural issues, and so devolve power and decisions to rural communities and rural MPs. Recognise the resilience and togetherness of the countryside, and so end the toxic culture war policies attacking game shooting and trail hunting.
The opportunity is there to stimulate the rural economy, tackle the cost-of-living crisis, and bring communities together. But for rural communities to thrive, they need support, not restrictions and increased burdens. They need a government that legislates for them, not against them. Mr Burnham has the chance to reset the relationship between government and countryside, and in fact, many of the changes he needs to make to do so would fit well within his current proposals.
If Mr Burnham wishes his premiership to be successful, he needs the countryside on his side.
Tim Bonner is chief executive of the Countryside Alliance.