Philip Hammond should be wary of the ladies of Cranford. The advent of the railways was
met with considerable disquiet in rural England, depicted by Elizabeth Gaskell in both Cranford and North and South.
High-speed rail has inspired another wave of determined conservatism in the shires. It’s a proper grassroots movement. For months now, Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire has warned the government that its councils and associations would oppose the development. Cabinet Ministers whose seats are local have supported their constituents, but the resentment is unchecked and it will damage the Conservatives to an extent. Last week, I met two lifelong Buckingham Conservatives who had torn-up their membership cards in protest at what they termed:
‘Another government that gives the finger to rural interests.’
Already the few Conservative MPs who are, first and foremost, members of the Countryside Alliance are being urged to reject the government’s plans.
The breach between county Tories and distant urban Conservatives date to the days of the Turnip Taliban rather than the formation of the coalition. Modernising Tory HQ has always avoided the problem; complacent that its detractors are just a titled and tweeded fraternity. Perhaps this tempted Hammond to denounce his adversaries as ‘nimbys’ (£). The suburban millionaire was unwise to resort to insult, a mistake doubled when he failed to invite the five affected local councils to today’s consultation. The contrast between Hammond’s dogmatic outburst and the gentle trinity of localism, decentralisation and the big society is as ironic as it is clear. After all, this government is supposed to be reforming not reoffending.
However, plenty of think tanks, advisory bodies and businesses believe that the government is right to resist the desires of ordinary people. The Campaign for Better Transport told PoliticsHome that the route must go through Birmingham. Arguments in favour of high-speed rail insist that extra capacity will invigorate the economy and go some way to bridging the divide between north and south; and they are compelling. But it is up to Hammond to convince those who will be adversely affected that their sacrifice is worthwhile. Or, as Mrs Gaskell put it, that ‘the future must be met, however stern and iron it be.’
Comments