Why Take Any Notice Of It?

The Countryside Alliance was created in March 1997[1] to oppose an anticipated ban on hunting with dogs under the New Labour government. It should never have been any more than a pro-hunt group of minimal importance to anyone not interested in the debate, but its appearance coincided with an accelerating crisis in farming and rural communities generally, and it has been able to capitalise on this to gain support among a much wider audience than just hunting enthusiasts. Repeatedly, strategies to disguise the core interests of the Alliance have been put into place, with the result that they have gradually become more and more acceptable to the media and the public, and have begun to be taken quite seriously by many as an authoritative voice on rural issues, even those with which they have little connection, for example social exclusion. These strategies have included:

• a gradual change of board members and key figures to move the peers and large landowners to more behind-the-scenes roles,
• the appointment of some non-hunting officers to give the impression of being a broad-based movement with all rural issues at its heart,
• infiltration of organizations such as the National Trust and RSPCA, in order to make hunting acceptable among more people, but also to narrow the gap between the Alliance’s own position and the position taken by organizations which are deemed by large numbers of the public to be respectable and moderate.

In spite of this, the Countryside Alliance is making some noise about what is undoubtedly a very serious problem – the decay of rural communities - and some appear to be of the opinion that in the absence of large-scale alternatives, they should merely be steered more in this direction instead of being opposed altogether. However, the Countryside Alliance cannot be part of the solution as it is part of the problem.

The Countryside Alliance should be opposed for several reasons:

• Its staff have several conflicts of interest (see below) including links with corporations involved in accelerating rural decay.
• Obviously, it supports hunting and other cruel sports.
• It claims to care about all aspects of rural life, yet its structure, origins, membership and staff suggest otherwise: It remains an organization to defend field sports. (See below)
• It claims to speak for ‘the countryside’. In fact, it speaks for the leisure interests of the landed gentry and assorted business people.
• Its proclamations about how hard times are for rural people are fairly shameless considering the role that landowners and business people have played in making sure that times stay as hard as possible for the peasantry.
• Its funding and investments show a high degree of hypocrisy (see below)

References
[1] It was not formally set up until the following year, but the groups initially came together under this title to organise the July 1997 Countryside Rally.