New prime minister, new approach to rural policy?
Professor Neil Ward reflects on what the first Blair Government can teach us about rural policy renewal and asks whether a future Burnham premiership could create a new opening for rural places.
New prime ministers very rarely arrive in office with a detailed agenda for rural policy. Yet some of the most significant periods of rural policy change have emerged not from explicit commitments to the countryside, but as side effects of wider reforms.
The first Blair Government provides a striking example. Although rural issues were barely mentioned in Labour's 1997 manifesto, the years that followed saw one of the most ambitious periods of rural institutional innovation, strategy development and public investment in half a century.
As Labour prepares for a new Prime Minister, the prospect of an Andy Burnham premiership raises the question of whether similar conditions for rural policy renewal might once again emerge.
When rural policy rises without warning
The experience of the first Blair Government is instructive. Rural policy rose rapidly up the political agenda in response to ‘events’ and as side effects of other changes which combined to create pressure for a stronger and more coherent approach to the countryside.
Why rural issues moved up the agenda
First, agriculture was in difficulty.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was bruised by the BSE crisis and was widely seen as in need of reform. At the same time, farm incomes were under severe pressure, prompting repeated demands from farming organisations for financial bailouts. The prospect of significant reform to the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy further heightened uncertainty.
Second, rural politics became increasingly visible and contentious.
Campaigns over fox hunting mobilised large numbers of people and generated considerable political attention. Large demonstrations during 1997 and 1998 became a focal point for broader concerns about the relationship between government and the countryside. Labour's newly elected rural MPs increasingly pressed for a more positive vision for rural areas that could challenge the perception that rural interests belonged exclusively to the political right.
Third, economic development reforms created opportunities for rural policy innovation.
The creation of Regional Development Agencies incorporated the regional offices of the Rural Development Commission, leaving its national functions unresolved. These were transferred to the new Countryside Agency, which quickly became an influential advocate for a broader rural policy that extended beyond farming. Meanwhile, devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland stimulated new thinking about rural economies, land use and agricultural development in each nation.
The legacy of the Rural White Paper
Together, these developments elevated rural issues far beyond their place in Labour's original programme. The result was the Rural White Paper of November 2000, which set out an ambitious agenda for rural communities and was accompanied by substantial new investment. Although implementation was disrupted by the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak of 2001 and subsequent institutional upheaval, the period remains one of the most energetic phases of rural policy development in recent British history.
Could devolution open a new rural policy window?
The lesson from this experience is that significant rural policy change often arises not from manifesto commitments but from broader programmes of political reform colliding with specific rural pressures. So might a Burnham premiership generate similar opportunities?
The implications of a Burnham premiership for rural areas would probably stem less from any explicit rural agenda than from his wider commitment to devolution, place-based development and public service reform.
Much of his political identity has been shaped by Greater Manchester and the argument that power, resources and decision-making should be dispersed away from Whitehall and closer to communities. Devolution of transport, skills, planning and economic development powers could offer rural areas greater influence over decisions affecting local economies and services.
However, devolution can be a double-edged sword. While power may become less distant, there is always the risk that rural concerns become overshadowed by the priorities of nearby towns and cities.
The rural test for ‘Manchesterism’
The key uncertainty concerns geography. Burnham's vision is rooted in the experience of a large metropolitan region. Whether a rural-sensitive version of "Manchesterism" can emerge remains an open question. Rural areas connected to major city regions may benefit from stronger investment and coordination, but the implications are less clear for more remote rural regions.
As in the late 1990s, the future of rural policy may depend less on what is promised explicitly for the countryside than on how broader programmes of reform reshape the institutions through which rural places are governed.
