On badgers and rural class politics
Rowenna Davis has written in the New Statesman that the left should support the now postponed badger cull because we should support struggling farmers. The left has historically ignored rural areas, she says, and rural people support the cull.
Well, let’s ignore, for a moment, the evidence as to whether or not the cull will effectively stop bovine TB. She argues that it will, others – including a former government chief scientific adviser – argue that it won’t.
What I find hard about Rowenna’s piece is that she equates rural opinions with farmers’ opinions. For many city dwellers, these are one and the same. But my experience is that the opposite is true. Most people in most rural areas aren’t farmers. And among those who aren’t, most – and particularly most working class people are, in my experience, are passionate about wildlife.
To explain this, let’s look at the campaign my parents have been running for the last couple of years in rural Perthshire. The Scottish government discovered that a population of beavers – a species made extinct in Scotland about 400 years ago – had been breeding in the Tay catchment area for nearly a decade. Despite the fact that the government has a trial re-introduction project on the West Coast of Scotland, they announced that they were going to trap all of the Tay beavers. It soon became clear that they would then be killed.
Now, my parents have spent a decade working for beaver re-introduction in Scotland. If you ask why, they’ll tell you that wetland is to Scotland what rainforest is to Brazil. And it is beavers who build our wetland. How dare we complain of Brazilians felling their rainforest whilst we refuse to bring back the animals which would restore ours?
So when the government announced that these beavers were to be shot, my mum and dad weren’t too happy. Along with an active group of locals, they whipped up a campaign. The Blairgowrie Advertiser, our local paper, soon backed them – regularly updating readers on the tale of Eric – the beaver found in the local River Ericht (though Eric later turned out to be Erica). During the Scottish Elections, the Perthshire Advertiser announced that the main issue locally wasn’t the recession or independence. It was the campaign to save the beavers.
The campaign ultimately won. After mass support, the government backed down. When Brian Taylor’s Big Debate – Scotland’s equivalent of Question Time – last come to Perthshire, one local asked what panelists thought of the attempts to kill the beavers. Even the local Tory, formerly a key critic of the rodents, was forced to say something nice about them. The chair, Taylor, wasn’t taken aback by this peculiar question. Quite the opposite. He said ‘ah yes, it would be a sad day if we came to Perthshire and didn’t get a question about beavers’.
The point is this. Farmers are almost all anti-beaver. But the vast majority of people in rural Perthshire are pro-beaver. Passionately so. In my experience, if there is a class divide, it is that working class people oppose the trapping, whilst landowners support it.
So if Rowenna wants the left to do better in rural areas, to support the rural working classes, she should start by realising that farmer and rural are not synonymous.
My second issue with the article is this: Rowenna is, of course, right that most farmers are struggling. And she is right that the left ought to stand with them. But lumping all farmers together is rather like lumping all shopkeepers together. Yes, local shops are being squeezed. But some shop keepers are Tesco managers. Saying that we ought to support farmers is no more meaningful than saying we ought to support everyone in the food production industry: it is true in that we ought to support all people, but it fails to address that ‘farmer’ just means someone who produces food. Some are essentially managers of vast agribusinesses, others have tiny smallholdings. Their interests are not the same.
Finally, back to badgers. At the end of her piece, she tells us that farmers are being squeezed – the price of milk has been hit by supermarket monopolies, our changing climate is causing real problems. Again, this is all true. But the thing that she argues for is not the break up of supermarket monopolies. It is the slaughter of badgers. Even by the most optimistic figures, this will only slightly alleviate the problem of bovine TB.
Britain’s left is too urban. We do need to get serious about supporting rural areas. But if we are going to, we will need to understand that not everyone who lives in ‘rural’ is a farmer, that not all farmers are the same, and that there are many more significant problems in rural areas than coughing badgers.
Wgo msays most farmers are struggling? Oh, city living green experts! As someone who lives in a rural area and has done since escaping London as the sixties ended, I still see the flash new Landrovers cruising the lanes, still see the new houses being build on a bit-o-land using solid oak b eams instead of the usual cheaper pine, still see the horses kept for a bit of sport or just to look nice in a field. Every acre earns a farmer money whether shre or he farms it or not, they get extra for not farming it under set aside. It is in the nature of farmers, and especially dairy farmers to complain bitterly about everything but especially about not making enough money. Ask them how much the make and they are silent. The badger cull is both pointless and counter productive, it is spreading badgers widely from infected areas, and if they are also infected the disease is spread as well. Meanwhile famrers can still move cattle between farms and markets, at each move they make more money. At root of the disease are the same reasons why TB in hum ans appeared and was eventuall;y removed, hygene. cattle are kept in dank, dark, wet filthy sheds where disease breeds. Human TB was beaten by improving the living standards of the poor, moving them from dank, dark damp houses. It don’t take a genious but it’s too much for most farmers to grasp.
Except for one, who, surrounded by farms with TB but with his cattle remaining clear because he [puts nutrient l;icks out for badgers, made from mollasses and vitamins, their health improv es and they fight off the TB and don’t suffer it or spread it. No MP has ever showed the slightest interest in this farmer.
Badger fences keep badgers out but they don’t stop TB transmission from other cows. Cows could be vaccinated but government rules prevent this.
Voluntary labels (e.g. badger-safe) would help consumer pressure be heard. When I see a supermarket manager and I have a bit of time, I ask whether the milk will be badger-safe in the future. It is important that the managers hear this question from consumers frequently.
Going off tangent and rambling a bit but shouldn’t the countryside be regarded as ours, ie belonging at least in essence if not by title deed to all the citizens of this country.
“”What you are describing sounds something like a ‘nature theme park’.””
I feel it is more than just that. Really city parks are sort of nature theme parks and though good are not the same as as fairly unplanned and unpredictable rural environment. There is something very important about being able to enjoy the space and nature of the countryside to me. I am an atheist but it is almost a spiritual need and I think I would be less healthy without being able to access it freely and free.
I also enjoy and feel the need for buzz and cosmopolitan feel of cities with its arts, culture(s) and probably more tolerant and open society.
I think urban people should have an input in planning of country side and the regulation of farm activities just as rural dwellers should have a say in things such as town planning, factory regulations and city pollution. Their views should be encouraged without resentment. Our country’s “environment” is ours, not theirs imo though obviously some people are effected more than others by proximity, employment etc and that needs to be considered and empathised with.
Rob
Hi Rob:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your description of the countryside: “maintaining its beauty and freedom to walk in a healthy environment or as a productive food factory.”
I don’t think its controversial to say we need to produce food and we also need to maintain ‘wild’ places. These ‘wild’ places may not in fact be very beautiful or accessible to people to walk in a healthy environment. What you are describing sounds something like a ‘nature theme park’. That’s what I was getting at with the whole ‘understanding the countryside’ thing. Some urban dwellers view it as a purely recreational thing, which probably bothers those who permanently live there. The recreational attitude is as human-centric as the agricultural attitude.
Generally, increasing animal welfare does mean higher costs, in which case the market price of milk would increase. So, if we accept that milking cows doesn’t intrinsically cause them suffering, we can probably increase animal welfare without becoming vegans. The stumbling block here is that the male cows born in the dairy industry are inevitably killed for beef. But that’s going off on a bit of a tangent.
>>Is there any reason apart from price, as to why dairy and beef producing land and farms cannot have badger proof fences?<<
Yes, it's pretty much the cost. Although such fences would have to be pretty sturdy and would probably interfere with subjective opinions of the countryside as a 'beautiful' and 'healthy' environment.
“”In general I think farmers feel that urbanites don’t understand the countryside. Perhaps this feeling extends to rural people as a whole – not sure.””
As an ex farmer and rural dweller ( not for much longer I hope) I don’t think farmers understand the countryside any better, depends what understanding the countryside means, eg maintaining its beauty and freedom to walk in a healthy environment or as a productive food factory.
But isn’t the culling , near irradication of badgers about maintaining a cheap dairy industry, much of which does not produce a particularly healthy food stuff and causes great suffering to thousands of cattle.
It does not seem ethical to me to support the slaughter of thousands of badgers to enable dairy farmers to just about survive if they keep their costs low.
Is there any reason apart from price, as to why dairy and beef producing land and farms cannot have badger proof fences?
Rob
Adam you may be interested in my thoughts on the matters you raise and how they relate to Land Value Tax… We must have a chat some day
http://renegadeecologist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/land-value-tax-and-badgers.html
http://renegadeecologist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/beaver-land-value-tax-future-slavery.html
I thought this article by a farmer was interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dave-purser/badger-cull-is-irrelevant_b_1952399.html
The bit that stuck in my mind was the bit where he says that any farmer worth the name shouldn’t need to kill wildlife to farm successfully.
The impact of Bovine TB is truly devastating as Rowenna correctly identifies in her New Stesman article, she is also correct to state that the Left has for far to long given up attempts to represent the view of rural communities (We at Country Standard have tried on a small scale to do so since 1935).
The problem we see is not the cull itself, if the cull works we should support it, but that all evidence shows that is likely to be unsuccessful, at least 70% of TB will remain and that is based on a very efficient and effective cull.
Defra and to a degree the NFU have predicated the badger cull, based on the premises that this cull would eliminate Bovine TB, it will not . So for Defra and the NFU to use the hash tag on its tweets of #tbfree simply highlights the point.
We fear if the pilots had gone ahead and not been successful in reducing TB levels greatly, then the public (and importantly the consumer) would blame Defra and the NFU for misleading them yet again. (remember eggs and salmonella)
The other issue we have a problem with is that Defra and NFU are rightly highlighting impact of TB and the destruction of cattle and the impact it has on farmers and their families, while at the same time Defra and NFU are eager to axe the agricultural wages board which many rural jobs are benchmarked against and set a rural minimum wage.
They don’t seem to care about the devastation to rural farm workers families of low pay or loss of money in rural communities.
Farming unions in the reset of the UK have supported the retention of the AWB and as Labour’s Huw Irranca-Davies has pointed out the new LibDem Farm Minister was an ardent supporter of the AWB until he became a Minister a few weeks ago (After the LibDems left Defra to the Tories for two years)
We are sure the NFU are genuine in their hopes that the cull works (and so are many CS farmers), but they do not seem to have contemplated the impact should the cull not work, bar a shrug of the shoulders and oh well we would try something else – The public will be outraged.
What’s clear is the NFU leadership have once again run into the arms of the Conservatives to secure the “pilot” cull’s are seen through, even when that same party undermines vital issues such as the power of the Grocery Code Adjudicator and planning which be vital for farming and food production in the future
Its fair and honest to state that Country Standard itself is split on the issue, the vast majority of our supporters who are farmers support the pilot culls , a vast majority of rural supporters outside farming do not.
The pilots if they go ahead and thats now very doubtful, so close to County council elections in May 2013 (England) will result in very patchy drop in TB rates(and very expensive) and then the full national cull quietly dropped, leaving Farmers and the public equally angry.
The Tories left the NFU out to dry during the badger cull debate, Defra knew from the summer that there were twice as many badgers as they had expected.
One last point is the very unwise hero worshipping of Brian May – Lets get this right he is a Tory and supporter of the Bow group who simply likes fluffy animals – workers can live in poverty but not fluffy animals
CS is cross party and non party and is for progressive politics
The May 2013 English County Council elections offer “The Left” an opportunity to reengage and put forward a plan for rural communities, Country Standard itself will be issuing a Countryside Charter.
Web Site:
http://country-standard.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: Country Standard
Mike
Editor Country Standard
I agree, the central question is whether the cull will work, and I agree it’s divided. I’m sure there’s an element of desperation amongst farmers, who feel that ‘something must be done’.
In general I think farmers feel that urbanites don’t understand the countryside. Perhaps this feeling extends to rural people as a whole – not sure. It’s tricky, because this divide makes it hard to have a rational debate about the best policy option.
Forgive me, Jon B, but your comment is a good example of why some in rural communities (farmers or not – we’ll take it as established that these communities aren’t homogeneous) feel frustrated with urbanites, particularly leftist ones. As you say, the goals you talk about are of limited relevane to rural communities. This generates a stereotype that urbanites have no interest in engaging with rural/farmer types and only in projecting their own values and goals onto them with little regard for their genuine concerns.
I think if we could somehow overcome that divide we’d stand a better chance of working out what to do with the TB situation.
I find the viewpoints expressed in this article and the comments very interesting. Adam, from his viewpoint, sees the important divide of one of class. I, from a farming background in an area where most farms are extremely small and farmers are, income-wise, some of the poorest people, see the important divide as one between those who have knowledge/experience of the food production system and those who don’t.
I never really considered class in my opinions on this. That said, even in my area there is a huge diversity of types of farms. There is my family’s farm with a single owner-labourer, and there are some farms employing tens of people and could be considered in a different economic class.
Angus – thanks for your comment. A few things. First, I agree that the British countryside certainly isn’t wild. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some intrinsic value in its biodiversity. Second, I agree that you can be working class and own land – obviously that doesn’t fit with a typical Marxist analysis, but I do agree. That was one of my points – not all farmers are the same.
There is a question that you have missed – will the badger cull do anything to alleviate bovine TB? Because my understanding is that the evidence on this is pretty divided…
Anyway, my point isn’t to say that farmers views are irrelevant – I grew up herding sheep. My point is just that urban activists can’t just imagine that everyone in rural areas is the same.
I hope things are better with your TB situation.
Adam
I think there are a few questions that need to be asked about the cull:
1. Is the life of a badger worth more than that of a cow? (many, many cows die from TB)
2. Do we value the productivity of our agriculture? (what losses due to TB can we take and should we compensate farmers?)
3. To what extent are farmers’ livelihoods threatened by TB? (I think this varies geographically. Our small farm in West Wales recently had a TB outbreak, which meant no cattle could be moved on or off the farm, which meant we could sell none of our stock. The outbreak has now passed but it has left us with pretty much no capital remaining for investing in new stock)
4. How can we reduce incidence of TB? How much money are we willing to spend on this?
5. How can we breach the divides? You identify the class divide between landowner and working-class (I say these are *not* mutually exclusive). There is also a divide between those who make their living off the land and those who see it as recreational, or simply make a normative judgement that ‘having badgers is good’.
A final point, which is not a question but a statement of fact. The countryside is not natural. We look out at rolling fields and think ‘how lovely’. All those hedgerows dissecting the fields are man-made. The fields themselves are man-made and a product of massive deforestation. There are stewardship schemes intended to balance the necessity of food production with maintenance of some kind of wildlife, but let’s be clear, this is highly artificial. The countryside is not a manifestation of untouched Nature.
I agree of course.
And it does often make me wonder how the Tories are constantly seen as the allies of the NUF and farmers generally. Maybe they are aligned on a class level, and similarly a societal level, but economically, the Tories are the biggest disaster for the farming community. Mostly because the Tories other allies are big business, including supermarkets, who are the bane (but a necessity) for the farming community and who I imagine give a lot more support to the Party, especially financially.
As you say, we can and should back the farmers on these issues (but not the unscientific badger cull), but it baffles me as to why the Tories manage to get away with their abuse of the farming community without seemingly an ounce of criticism.
“Britain’s left is too urban. We do need to get serious about supporting rural areas”
I’m not sure about this statement. In a way we should, in the way that helping people who deserve help is important. But depending on the strategy, it really makes sense to focus on cities. Generally, this is where people are more powerful, due to jobs in key industries (think, 2008 grangemouth strike, or RMT strikes), and in terms of civil disobedience, they are more likely to be disruptive to the running of states. So, the urban working class is more powerful than rural ones, generally speaking.