Why do rural areas vote Tory?

                     

Why do rural areas vote Tory? Why if the LibDems make some headway in rural areas is it primarily in the towns, and larger villages? 

What is Labour up against in rural local elections? What are the issues, if any, that may appeal to rural voters and how can they be expressed so that they are communicated in terms that rural voters recognise and acknowledge? Is it possible that we can learn from the u-turn re the forests? 

Ed Miliband reckons that protests against the reorganisation of the NHS will outstrip those against the forest sell off proposals. However, if we analyse the Tory-led government’s forest U-turn it can be argued that it was the reaction of conservative voters in the shires, who contacted their MPs in large numbers, that had the greatest influence rather than the half million signatories and campaigning groups. 

You only have to look at so-called u-turns on Bookstart and the School Sports Partnership to realise that well-heeled interest groups backed by celebrities had more effect than all the political and educational arguments put forward by the Labour opposition, unions and professions. As such, is it possible that objections to the NHS changes are for the general public too abstruse, too abstract in concept to mobilise effective pressure even though there are numerous professional opponents? The Independent has an interesting article published today by Matt Chorley called Flip Flop Dave.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/flipflop-dave-uturns-threaten-to-undermine-camerons-image-2219976.html

But back to business. How can the rural voter be defined?   Dr Michael Woods an academic at Aberystwyth University says, “The majority of rural people have made a decision to live in rural areas. They are more interested in policies to conserve the landscape rather than policies to raise the standard of living for the minority of deprived or disadvantaged residents in rural areas.”… “Rural areas are beset by powerful interests who do not want their perception of rurality threatened by inappropriate bodies, development or change. This can include state meddling in local affairs and sovereignty, agricultural decline, low cost housing or any more development.”

He sums it up nicely when he writes’ “within rural areas there is a power struggle going on between those that have and want more and those that have and those that don’t have as much as they used to and those that want something and those that need. That is a political no win situation.”….” The context in which the processes of countryside change are being played out – a planning system with a preservationist bias, an agricultural sector in crisis, a burgeoning middle class and a nation with an Arcadian view of its past – is common to many localities across England.

“The results of this complex interplay of social and power relations leaves some people marginalised in their own community as other individuals and groups move in and bring with them both economic power, political and social ambitions and even a different view of what rurality is all about.”

In addition in rural areas we see a stronger retention of historical political allegiances where voters voting habits are permanently ingrained by long-term processes of political socialisation that takes place in the family, the work place and in the wider community. Traditionally in rural areas Labour has been regarded as the party of the trade unions, of centralisation and the state, perhaps dare it be said influenced by foreign ideas, while the Conservative Party might be presented as the party of private enterprise, low taxation, of private property and above all the nation as a whole, which makes them a truly patriotic choice.

Then there is the question of paternalism, a version of feudal autocracy that in the early part of the 20-century obliged the agricultural class to vote following the lead of the local landowner. In this district it would have been the Earl of Portsmouth, who laid the foundation for Morchard Bishop Memorial hall in 1932. Such people would have invariably been the figurehead for any local good cause. The loan of their name and face would be a sure-fire seal of approval. Today we have the Devon Central MP Mel Stride, who has obviously done his rural homework, continuing in the style of the good Earl (the present Earl is of the far right) by lending his name and unfortunately his face to whatever cause Tory local councillors tip him off about. In this way political socialisation is still alive.

Mori polls in the south west have found that only around 20% would wish to reinstate traditional hunting.
 

As we see from Michael Woods’ analysis the countryside is not a static entity, as the Alliance would like us to believe. The concept of the rural has been reformulated to suit those who have made a conscious decision to live there and to protect their perception of rurality and the privileges it brings.

rurality and the privileges it brings.

In general it could be argued that consumers of public services are more likely to vote Labour because they see Labour as most likely to improve living conditions and to improve public services while private sector workers and consumers of private services may be more likely to vote Conservative because they oppose the higher levels of taxation necessary to defend public services which they do not use, or so they believe.  Yet many of the rural population are elderly, consumers dependent on public services in health subsidised public transport, state pensions, winter fuel allowances, and tax credits.  And yet they tend to vote Tory.

This strengthens the argument that many older rural voters have been politically socialised. We only have to add to the mix the middle class incomers who do not want their perception of rurality challenged to realise that voting Tory is about a perception of identity not of political choice. However in this equation the plight of the young and the rural working class has no place.

We should therefore ask ourselves about those who do not vote Tory either by abstaining or voting for the only alternative (at least in Mid Devon) the LibDems. The LibDems have been very adept at localising their politics, putting a recognisable face onto local issues that range from potholes to local charity events. The idea is that votes accrue to people who are available, who care who are just round the corner and who are active on your behalf no matter how small the issue, are truly representative of you and me, because in some way they are just like you and me. The LibDems have spent many years working to a centrally produced rulebook to refine this approach, and for Labour to attempt to follow in the short term is not practical.  Still, it will be very interesting to see how much of the LibDem vote is an anti-Tory vote.

In recent national elections, certainly since 1992 political socialisation and indeed class, has had less correlation with voting intentions than in, certainly pre-war, elections.  In the words of Bill Clinton “It’s the economy stupid.” The economy has become the central political issue. Recent elections have been won partly because the winning party have been seen as having the best policies on the economy and more importantly seen as being most competent to run it.  It follows that since most voters have insufficient understanding to follow the details of economic policy, judgments of competence are likely to be influenced by perceptions of overall leadership which have become much more important determinants of voting. Brown was pretty competent, and certainly decisive during the financial crisis.  This is why that PRDave spent so much energy in demolishing Gordon Brown’s character, when in reality the Tories had nothing better to offer.

The coming local elections are unlikely to entirely follow a pattern of putting single local issues to the forefront, although of course there may be exceptions. National issues have become local issues. National cuts have become local cuts.  However anti cuts campaigns have something of the ideological about them, and it could be argued that such campaigns will not work in our rural wards. Going further, ideological language e.g. “ConDems” and the stock phrases of the unions while playing to the converted are more likely to act as barriers to effective electoral communication. The same could be said about the left’s fixation with “privatisation”which to many is an ideological issue, and anti-privatisation is not necessarily, no matter how much we believe otherwise, is not an issue that unless it is backed by clear and unequivocal evidence of its shortcomings.   The way in which issues are presented will be crucial, remember the medium is the message.

So what are the issues that Labour can exploit in the coming local elections?  Here are seven suggestions

The situation of the young, hit by the removal of the EMA and the deterrent to higher education of high tuition fees.  This issue affects grandparents, parents and young voters. It has a direct relationship to;

Jobs. Particularly youth unemployment. Where are the local jobs to come from?  Problem of the high street and local business as employer. What schemes exist to support school/college leavers?

Rural Transport.  High fuel costs for private residents and business. Government hesitation in capping fuel duty.  The future of subsidised transport.  Effects of rural isolation on the poor. The Cost of finding work and getting to work.

The culpability of Banks. The cost to local people of VAT increases, inflation and specific council cuts, and the effect on charities.

Police cuts. Is there a relationship between police numbers and crime, which the government denies?

National and local leadership and political and economic competence. Focus on the government record. Incompetence and u-turns.

NHS. This needs to be worked on, however increases in waiting lists, a debate about the effectiveness of targets can be highlighted.

Finally we should hammer home that there is only one alternative.  It is a two horse race Tory with LibDems or Labour. Strategic voting is dead.