Urban Bias in Politics

In a week where we have seen some of the worst of urban bias from the Labour minister Jenny Riddell-Carpenter here is an excerpt from my book Marsh Fen and Town South Lincolnshire and Beyond where I discuss in more balanced tones urban bias in national and local politics.

• 

Urban bias in politics – In the past the political bias was towards land-owning men as they controlled the voter – in 1866 all voters had to be male property owners over 21. This biased voting to land owners and favoured the interests of rural estates as less than 5% of the population had the vote. The growth of democratic political influence in 1867 saw the vote extended to occupiers, those renting in boroughs, seeing a slightly increasing voter influence from some of the newer towns of England and Scotland.  In 1884 this right extended beyond boroughs into counties. However, land occupation could give multiple votes swaying democratic bias to the land owners of the countryside. The 1918 Representation of the people Act and the subsequent act of 1928 gave all men and women over 21 the vote. In 2024 at least 60% of voters live in cities with many more living in urban areas and towns. The urban voter is typically served by an urban focused Member of Parliament, and quite right that this is so. But, it means that people with an urban view and bias are making both policy and legislation that affects rural communities based upon that bias. The challenge for the predominantly rural Member of Parliament is to be an advocate for  their rural constituents  and influence his urban colleagues across parties of all political colour. The rural lobbyist needs to reach out to say the MP for the London Borough of Hackney North and Stoke Newington to get their point across and counter their natural urban bias. From a simple mathematical reality more urban constituents than rural ones means a bias of representation towards the urban. This is only ever likely to increase as urban populations are growing at a greater rate than rural ones. The urban-biased MP needs to understand the effect of their choices upon the rural. However, I do concede that the view of an outsider to the countryside can often be of as great or even more value than the biased view of a Fenman.

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 abolition of succession tenancies, capital taxation and the green pound. Local accusations of democratic deficit in favour of the urban increased in view of the East Midlands European Parliamentary constituency that lumped the Fens with the urban and industrial Midlands. Perception was that the Fens would have sat more comfortably  in the East of England constituency. The irony of this perception cannot be lost when you read the former South Holland MP, Sir Richard Body’s arguments that agriculture had seen a huge transfer of capital towards it at the expense of industry due to the European Common Agricultural Policy.

I perceive that the Fens are afflicted by a new form of urban bias in local government and the pressure groups and activists that influence them. In January 2022 the Radio 4 program “Any Questions” was broadcast from Gedney Hill village hall and I was in the audience. In the warm up to the live broadcast the audience are invited to ask possible questions as part of the warm up process. I said, “I would ask whether the panel deemed it acceptable that more and more larger houses outside the budgets of local people were being built in villages like Gedney Hill?” There was a groan and a mild heckle to this in the audience. Indeed, despite being married in the village and only living in Spalding, the heckler viewed me as an outsider! Whilst my question was not chosen, it does reveal a significant issue that relates to the political bias I describe that reaches into planning. The simple fact is that a home in the country is what a city person hopes to buy and  farmer hopes to sell.

The problem is that there is an influx of people into rural areas on higher incomes. These people often forma combination of second homes, dormitory homes, or retirement. This causes a vast inequality in that despite a rising of average incomes those ‘locals’ that are poorer are often worse off as the social and economic structures adjust to a mobile affluent incomer to the detriment of the existing local poorer population, which is effectively short-changed. Primary schools, public transport, local shops, mobile libraries, doctors, pharmacies all become increasingly focused on the urban areas and two cars become a necessity to struggling households.

There is also an urban bias in favour of the urban. The local democratic bias works in two ways:

Firstly, the urban incomers have more time and money to become active in local government. This has meant that the dominance of local businessmen, landowners, farmers and long-standing residents that Fenland areas have seen in the past are prone to be eroded by increasing numbers of urban people that have moved to the rural areas. This is illustrated by a severe difference in outlook as I will illustrate with a current example relating to the 1930’s. In the 1930’s when local councillors objected to new electricity pylons the focus was on the loss of crops and the impact upon agriculture. In the 2020’s when local councillors object to new electric pylons the focus is on aesthetic appearances and an understandable desire for people not to see pylons from their homes. This in the 2020’s is all the more relevant when you consider certain horticultural and business capacities have been curtailed by the lack of electric grid capacity. Furthermore, some councillors have expressed a preference for underground cable that actually see greater cost to the public and greater disturbance of agricultural activity. In the 1930’s there was a far more pragmatic approach based on local need of people connected to the local economy and not local pressure.

Secondly, is the power of pressure groups comprising often of urban newcomers to Fenland areas that have the time, ability and resources to organise. It should be considered as I state this that the late Tony Benn, upon retiring from Parliament, considered that pressure groups were where real politics was now being done. I have seen some horrendous behaviour by organised pressure groups against farmers largely orchestrated by urban incomers. The worst involved a farmer and his whole family suffering a hate campaign urging them to “Bring back the cows” despite the fact the farm had not had livestock for almost 15 years. What made this worse for the victim is that the plans for solar panels on his farm were being applied for by a third party over which he had no say or control. The poor farmer and his family were stuck in the middle of a ridiculous campaign orchestrated by urban newcomers that had only just moved to the area and did not have the decency to speak to him directly. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) pressure groups are typically of urban origin, often recent arrivals, and have little interest in the rural economy other than their own selfish needs. In one Fenland area I could predict who was going to object to any local activity whether it be the temporary erection of a polytunnel, the building of a farm shed or a phone mast – this person was literally so much a pain in the arse as they sought to protect their selfish image of their rural idyll at all costs. The problem with such pressure groups, whilst they are an essential part of the democratic process, is that they shut down meaningful dialogue and in the twenty-first century this has become worse due to the polarisation of argument in social media, especially the dreaded village Facebook group. It appears that in a world where red is ‘stop’ and green is ‘go’, there is little room for amber.

However, it can be that a newcomer can fall foul of local wrath as I saw when a person newly arrived to a marshland village decided to start a petition to stop the RAF from using the local bombing range. The petitioner was subject to abuse and ostracization and left within two years of arriving.

Click on picture below to link to book.