Is Devolution a Threat to Rural Livelihoods, Economy and Opportunity

Devolution of powers assumes local people know what is best for local people. Here I question this reasoning and consider whether it is in fact a severe threat to rural life.

In the 1970’s it was a common view extolled by local politicians that legislation and policy impinged on the rural economy, food production and farming – such as the abolition of succession tenancies, capital taxation and, the green pound. Indeed you see similar views extolled by farmers in 2026 as they despair at government policy that undermines prior policy and puts farmers and rural businesses on a rollercoaster that mostly heads down and never up. Central policies will not change, but fiscal devolution will potentially see a lot of spending power into the hands of one elected person – a regional mayor, and this has great potential to increase a rural inequality that is currently dismantling traditional rural structures and livelihoods on a scale that has not been seen since deindustrialisation.

The irony of what is happening should not be lost in that the deindustrialising of the UK combined with EEC/EU policy saw a huge transfer of capital from industry to farming which saw farmers set on a treadmill of greater capital costs, greater working capital costs and increased production trying to chase profits. This ended quite abruptly as governments in the twentieth century have pivoted towards environmental policies and then removed funding for this work that is not financially productive. Indeed this is a pattern that has happened across much of Europe. This may not change. But the potential increase of powers and fiscal spending is set to change in my opinion to the detriment of the rural that is being increasingly squeezed by urban migration, gentrification and corporate environmentalism[1].

The problem is that local government is now greatly affected by a new form of urban bias, pressure groups and activists. The problem is that there is an influx of people into rural areas on higher incomes . These people often form a combination of second homes, dormitory homes, or retirement. This causes a vast inequality in that despite a rising average income the home-born local is worse off as the social and economic structures adjust to a mobile affluent incomer to the detriment of the rural local. Thus the voices of the local businessmen, landowners, farmers and long-standing residents are drowned out by a majority that is less reliant upon the local economy.

Thus we see the local democracy swing unfairly to the urban incomer as they have more time and money to become active in local government and in pressure  groups  with the time, ability and resources to organise to defend their own selfish needs. Such examples are as follows:

A farmer and his whole family suffered a hate campaign urging them to “Bring back the cows” despite the fact the farm had had no livestock for almost 15 years. This was an organised objection to an application for solar panels on his farm by a third party that he had no say  or control over. The poor farmer and his family were stuck in the middle of a ridiculous campaign by urban incomers, that included a local councillor, none of whom had had the decency to speak to the farmer direct.

In one Fenland area I could almost predict who would object to every polytunnel application, or phone mast as the vociferous urban incomer sought to protect their rural idyll at any cost.

As a reservoir was proposed in Oxfordshire I was informed by a local politician that it would never happen as a small group of  “City folk with deep pockets” would “tie up any plans for years and it would be far easier and cheaper to put a reservoir in a less affluent area of countryside.”

A Cambridgeshire farmer received vociferous objections to a new corn silo that was to replace the old bins that were effectively unusable by modern machines and had insufficient capacity even if they were used with objectors saying he was “industrialising the countryside.”

A significant investor approached a rural Town Council on multiple occasions seeking to discuss developing an electronics industrial unit that would create 40 jobs including 6 apprenticeships as a satellite supply to a larger business in a nearby City. Fed up with no response he spoke informally and directly to local councillors and they made it clear that they saw no place for his business despite the local commercial park being under-utilised.

We see this with gentrification where hospitality, the arts and culture heralded as an economic boon, whereby in reality it creates many seasonal low paid, insecure jobs, or, worse still, many unpaid job opportunities occupied by the urban retired and semi-retired incomers. Walk around any tourist attraction and consider how many there are unpaid volunteers effectively displacing young people from entry level jobs.

If you do not believe my reasoning consider what outcry there would be if today we sought to apply the following activities in the modern day rural environment – activities that supplied well paid jobs and incomes that the rural population and economy thrived and in some areas still thrive upon: abattoirs, coal mines, fertilizer manufacturers, quarries, food processors. Now add to this that there are now people that object to any form of livestock farming, use of farm equipment, forestry traffic, let alone traditional land management.

If devolution is applied by mayoral power, consider that there are currently only 14 mayors and most of their votes come from urban areas.

If you think devolution does not pose a threat to rural economy and livelihoods perhaps consider the experience of those already affected in Wales. Levelling up is meaningless is competing wants are not levelled by equitable needs

[1] This includes companies and charities.

If you find the issues raised of interest I consider these in my book Marsh Fen and Town South Lincolnshire and Beyond available here in paperback or hardback: https://amzn.eu/d/007MS6q9