The Lie of the Land
How a Tiny Group of Landowners Wrecked the Countryside, and How the Public Can Restore It
Guy Shrubsole
Having read it
★★★★★
A brilliantly clear look into the lie(s) of the land we live on (certainly in England) that clearly involved a lot of time, people, research and effort but presents the case for progressive and, definitely possible, important, relevant and timely land-reform(s) for us and future generations that is really, really needed.
It is worrying what a lot of our politics, aristocracy, vested interests, lobby groups and archaic traditions that are held onto, still do and have the power to trap (real) democracy through banners of goodwill and stewardship and taxpayers’ money even though it all seems to get ‘sold’ back to us, the people, as if its the ‘correct’ way to do things and any challenge to (or even query of) the status quo is tantamount to some sort of revolution and, or even, some kind of socialism best not allowed to happen . . . the less us serfs know, the better, right?
Well, no.
For too long, we’ve been told a lie – that you need to own land in order to care for it. Let’s replace the lie of the land with a profound truth: that anyone can develop a deep love of nature, place and land, regardless of whether you own it.
Read this book and spread its values, perspective and suggestions as it’ll be good for you, your community and your country. In fact, join one (or all!) of the groups mentioned in its last chapter and the ten opportunities for progressive land reform.
Like (the seeming obsession with) our monarchy, the aristocracy and heritage industry, we really need to get rid of a lot of them and their associated (and backward) tradition (and assumptions) so that real, long-term progress can really start to be effectively made. Also, for that to be an ongoing and adaptable process that involve everyone and doesn’t worry about the need to hang on to tradition, especially if it’s for the sake of tourism and its associated economy, etc. etc.!
If there’s anywhere in our countryside that wildness ought to be prioritised, it’s surely in our national parks. Yet national parks in Britain are not owned by the nation.
Let’s be forward-thinking and progressive and take the opportunity to show and learn real change to the country’s foundations and very outdated customs.
As highlighted and explained in the book, during the early- and then mid-twentieth century (before Thatcherism and neoliberalism an’ all that made land reform a complete no-go) there were real efforts made (in and around the current governments of the times) and real change nearly enacted on the statute to really empower and begin land reform in England. So why is it, that it seems nigh-on impossible for England to capture that passion and integrity for meaningful change again?
We do seem to be politically trapped by our own (historical?) petard in the UK, especially Westminster. But, hopefully, the work by the good people mentioned in this book and all the associated efforts explained and ideas espoused by them and the author continue to keep the issue(s) relevant and paramount (and free of party political colours) and force meaningful, long-term change(s); and encourage us all to get a little more involved and aware of the issues to help steer such an integral and important aspect of all our lives; the benefits of getting land reform can assist, maybe even solve, so many other pressing issues in a legitimate way and that doesn’t involve metaphorical sticking plasters to appease short-term attitudes, invariably based around endless growth and increased monetary profit, not adaptable or truly democratic and involving processes that work for everyone.
A good passage
For the same amount of taxpayers’ money that it’s handed to the Duke [of Westminster] and his tenant farmers, the government could have bought the Abbeystead Estate back in 1980 at the reported sales price of £2.5 million – and still had £3 million to spare. I’ve spoken to numerous civil servants and policy analysts who make this same point about the way we’ve paid large landowners to be good stewards. In many cases, they say, the taxpayer would’ve been better off if the government had simply acquired the land outright, rather than wasting millions of pounds paying private landowners for environmental outcomes that they failed to deliver.
A second good passage
You don’t have to believe that all land should suddenly be nationalised to see the value of a government willing to take on the ownership of land if private landowners refuse their responsibilities. Where landowners are manifestly failing to be good stewards, we need the state to be able to intervene. That can be through regulation, and it can also be through a change of ownership – or the threat to do so. Imagine if landowners took seriously the possibility that Natural England might buy out their land if they didn’t manage it properly for nature: the fear that it could happen would be a sharp spur to better stewardship, even without much land changing hands. When schools fail, they’re taken over by their local council; when councils fail, they’re taken over by central government. Why not follow a similar procedure with failing landowners?
A third good passage
The foundations of Britain’s Nature State were laid down over seventy years ago. Four decades of neoliberalism have wrecked our faith in the power of the state to do good, seen large parts of it privatised, and made even talking about public ownership something of a taboo. But it is high time we broached the subject again. As the historian Matthew Kelly says, these are ‘not new ideas’; the idea that ‘the state should be empowered – or should use existing powers – to bring valuable natural habitat into state ownership when landowners fail in their custodial duties, resurfaces periodically.’59 And there is nothing as unstoppable as an idea whose time has come.