It used to be said that whilst the Conservatives tried to do things for the countryside, Labour did things to it.
The last couple of weeks rather proves that point.
For months we had been told that changing the inheritance tax rules to include farmers (the direct opposite to what farmers had been told before the 2024 election) was an essential element of the Chancellor’s need to plug the infamous black hole. Everyone had to play their part in the national effort. Farmers planned accordingly, many at great expense. They protested noisily, argued forcibly and the nation sensed an injustice in the making.
Last week the Government’s position changed. A U-turn slipped out as backs are turned, Parliament is in recess, and Epstein yet again commands the front pages.
A government recognising its errors and correcting them is as welcome as it is rare. I remember George Osborne doing it — more elegantly, it has to be said — when his “pasty tax” budget bombed so badly in 2012. It would be nice to think that it was a well-made argument that has tipped the scales, but the truth is that the decision to reverse the measure is just as cynical as the decision to impose it was. The Government misjudged public mood; the media reaction, and that Jeremy Clarkson and Kaleb Cooper have transformed the public attitude towards farming with Clarkson’s Farm.
Is it the tweed, the funny accents, the big expensive kit, the subsidies, or just the fact that they own land, often large chunks of it?
Labour has a problem. Deep within its DNA still lurks a nagging feeling of antipathy to a group of people, so at odds with Labour’s traditional vote, that the temptation to punish them is just too much. Is it the tweed, the funny accents, the big expensive kit, the subsidies, or just the fact that they own land, often large chunks of it? Is it because farm animals are reared and killed there, or that hunting and shooting are part of a complicated and historic mosaic that thrives in these beautiful but private places. Perhaps they are envious, bitter, scared even?
A glance at this week’s social media commentary helps confirm our worst fears. They just don’t like us very much, and they don’t think there are enough of us to make much of a difference.
And now it thinks that the reversal of this vindictive tax measure will tip the balance of trust back in their favour. It will do no such thing, welcome though it might be for those whose farms might be saved because of it.
In an almost simultaneous manoeuvre, the Government wags its bossy finger at us on the strange subject of trail-hunting — a little known but largely harmless hobby that replaced foxhunting when Labour banned that 20 years ago and to which they now want to assign even more Parliamentary time. “Why don’t you just replace the fox with a pre laid trail” they said. So, we reluctantly obeyed orders only to be told that the new version was too similar to the old one, so let’s ban that too.
Most trail-hunting activity has troubled neither foxes nor police
Yes, some hunts have pushed the limits a bit, and some have been caught doing the hunting equivalent of 40mph in a 30 mph limit. Their offences (and they are offences) warrant a debate about enforcement rather than a whole new political convulsion. Overall, most trail-hunting activity has troubled neither foxes nor police.
It was 1997 (the last time Labour went into office) when I was first asked by a journalist if we were witnessing the “last ever Boxing Day meet” — the most visible celebration of hunting as far as the public and press are concerned. The fact that I have been asked the same question by the same people for the following 27 years ought to signal some kind of warning to those in Government who think that this will be either easy or popular. It won’t be popular because most people really don’t care enough to alter their vote, and it won’t be easy for a multitude of technical and practical reasons (see the Hunting Act 2005 for details) let alone the fact that hunting’s numerous supporters don’t like bare-faced prejudice when they see it and are experienced street fighters.
As a former Chief Whip my heart bleeds for the current incumbent Johnnie Reynolds. Like the hapless cavalrymen at Balaclava he is the one faced with leading his men into the valley of death. Already dealing with colleagues infuriated by being forced to publicly support the now reversed farming tax measures, the next joy that awaits him is the multitude of amendments and demands that will be dangled like Christmas decorations to any legislation which emerges on this and a raft of other animal welfare measures. Certainly, it will go far too far for many, and nothing like far enough for others. No one will be happy, stakeholders will be infuriated and voters dismayed that the things that really matter slip further out of view. Worst of all is that few (if any) animals will benefit either.
Back in 1997 a well-meaning Tony Blair let all of this get out of hand. It all started harmlessly enough with a Private Members Bill, but 7 years and 700 hours later he finally admitted what a catastrophic error he had made. Colleague against colleague is one thing but unleashing a particularly unpleasant and vicious kind of prejudice on a kindly and trouble-free community was, in his view, one of his greatest mistakes. Starmer has a chance not to make the same ones.
