One of the ways you judge a government is by its competence in dealing with the unexpected. So let's be clear. Confronted by the foot-and-mouth crisis, which came out of the blue, the Blair team have done very well. Lessons really have been learnt from the BSE disaster. Nick Brown, an unlikely hero of the hour, moved fast to do what was needed immediately - paralyse all livestock movements; take a decision to "draw down" EU money to help farmers; close parks and footpaths.
Although it is still too early to say how wide the devastation will be, almost no one is faulting the Labour government for its crisis management. In the Commons, the Tories protested too much when Nick Brown said he didn't welcome a debate. His excuse that it would divert official and ministerial attention at the worst possible time was completely justifiable. The farmers are not likely to be with the opposition this time. Tony Blair himself called an emergency ministerial meeting, kept on top of developments, and promised cash help. All this will have won him credit among a deeply hostile rural electorate.
But another way you judge a government is by its vision, including its readiness to grab the unexpected and twist it into an opportunity. Here, the reaction of Labour to the farming crisis is less impressive. The problem is obvious enough. As consumers, we have had one health problem after another, from salmonella to CJD, worries over beef, lamb, chicken, eggs - you name it. As producers, the farmers have seen their incomes collapse. As ramblers and countryside-lovers, many townies have seen birds, flowers and animals disappear and great swathes of Britain turn into monotonous wasteland. In short, agriculture isn't working.
In private, many ministers and MPs know why. It is because we have become hooked on cheap, low-quality food that can be either imported or grown here using intensive, semi-industrial techniques that seem to spread disease. Now, in the middle of yet another disaster, public confidence in British food must be falling through the floor. And rightly so. Yes, it is partly the fault of greedy big farmers, who grew fat on subsidies for years and have deals with the profit-hogging supermarket chains. But it is also the fault of urban consumers, who have grown used to the idea that you can get good, safe, nutritious food for next to nothing.
Some members of the government want Blair and Brown to tear up the party's earlier manifesto and the paperwork on second-term thinking about countryside issues, and start again. This could be the moment for a great shift in thinking towards local produce, organic farming and smaller-scale, safer, somewhat more expensive fresh food. A visionary government would see that and begin to act.
Imagine a Britain that had become known for high-quality food, for the rich biodiversity of its flora and fauna, even for the beauty of its old, once-admired landscapes. It is not impossible. Farmers' markets are already spreading. Organic produce is spreading, too, along the supermarket shelves. Townies increasingly want to walk and holiday in attractive, non-industrial landscapes. A huge expenditure is not necessary to shift public opinion and help the farming industry market itself differently. Here is the great opportunity for ministers with the wit to grab it.
There are, inevitably, barriers. The mad economics of farming are tied into the still not properly reformed Common Agricultural Policy, and an aggressive line would need to be taken there. But the French, after all, are already threatening to break EU rules in their handling of this crisis. They and other European countries have more flexibility and self-interest built into their farming economies than Britain does. Then there is the problem of the supermarkets, which have done so well out of industrial farming. They are big funders of politics, including the Labour Party. They would have to be taken on.
Above all, there is the political problem. Farming now accounts for around only 1 per cent of the national economy. The number of seats dependent on real farming votes can be counted on the fingers of a few hands, and are almost all Tory anyway. Labour voters like cheap food and are not much bothered by threats to the lifestyles of chaps in stone farmhouses. Why should Labour bother?
Ministers I talk to give a few good responses to all this. First, the cheap food issue is not what it seems. Poorer voters tend to buy heavily processed and industrially produced food, the stuff the supermarkets and big food companies want to sell them, because that is where the maximum profits lie - in the gunk-filled pizzas and pies, the sugar-loaded biscuits, the tins full of salt and additives. Just ask Labour's health team about the effects on obesity and heart disease.
A major government campaign to persuade people to spend less on all that, and more on locally grown vegetables and well-treated animals, would not necessarily penalise poorer voters.
Under the Tories, unsavoury farming methods were introduced all over the countryside. The rest of us learnt to look away and not ask too many questions. We no longer have that option.
Only Labour can offer a new deal to the country; the Conservatives are too tied to the current systems of subsidy and agricultural interest. Farming is on its knees and the farming lobby is probably more open to radical change than at any time in the past century. People in towns are more educated about food and ready to listen.
The crisis management of the past two weeks has been admirable. But if it does not lead to a major shift in national thinking, it will quickly be forgotten, another food crisis will follow in a few years' time, and a great opportunity will have been squandered.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
