Countryside Alliance

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)

What Is The Countryside Alliance, Exactly?

The Countryside Alliance is, formally, an amalgamation of three groups: the British Field Sports Society, the Countryside Movement and the Countryside Business Group, but it is the name "British Field Sports Society Investments Ltd." which appears in the annual accounts, alongside "Countryside Alliance"[2], suggesting that the amalgamation may not have taken place on very equal terms..

Indeed, the Countryside Movement and Countryside Business Group appear only to have been formed to support field sports. According to a briefing prepared for the CPHA, the Countryside Business Group was at first called the Country Sports Business Group, but changed its name after only a few weeks[3]. It was founded by American-born corporate lawyer Eric Bettelheim with the aim of raising funds to protect field sports.

Bettelheim is qualified to practice law in both the UK and the USA, and is a consultant for Mishcon de Reya, where his Countryside Alliance chum John Jackson is also employed. According to Bettelheim’s potted biography on the Mishcon De Reya website, he specialises in the regulation of financial institutions, derivatives, managed funds, cross-border transactions, commercial disputes arbitration, venture and development capital. He is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and he is the author of over 40 publications and principal editor of three texts dealing with swaps, futures and commodity products, none of which seems to suggest that he has the concerns of the rural poor at heart[4]. His approach to fundraising seems to have been quite unsuccessful: The Countryside Business Group aimed to persuade businesses which would be threatened by the demise of bloodsports to donate a percentage of their annual turnover to the cause of defending them, as well as imposing a voluntary national game levy, for example £1 per salmon or 27 p per driven bird kept[5]. The CBG fell well short of its fundraising targets, however. Perhaps the irony of some of Britain’s richest people trying to solicit protection money from small businesses and individuals was not lost on those who did not pay up.

The Countryside Movement was founded in November 1995, supposedly as a group to campaign on rural issues other than bloodsports. Sir, now Lord, David Steel was its first chairman, and received £93752 for his efforts[6]. His position on hunting was mixed:

"If I were confronted with an opinion poll and asked to tick a box to approve or disapprove hunting, I would have to say that I disapprove,but that is not the point. The point is whether I use my vote in the House of Commons to ban an activity in which I personally do not wish to take part when others might use their votes to ban activities in which I do wish to take part."[7]

Angling, for example[8].

Other leading lights in the Countryside Movement were more directly in favour of hunting. At the first two inaugural meetings, those present included Max Hastings, editor of the London Evening Standard (a keen shooter and angler, and Vice President of the Game Conservancy Trust)[9], Earl Peel, Chairman of the Game Conservancy Trust; the Duke of Westminster, then President of the Game Conservancy Trust and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation; and Hugh Van Cutsem, shoot owner and head of the Countryside Business Group (CBG). The Countryside Movement’s Board of Directors also included Robin Hanbury-Tenison OBE, then Chief Executive of the British Field Sports Society and John Swift, then Chief Executive of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation[10].

The most obvious influence of the BFSS and the Countryside Business Group on the Movement came from funding. Any pretence that the Countryside Movement was a separate body totally disappears with the revelation that the CBG provided £550 000 towards the set-up and development of the organisation and that the BFSS provided £250 000[11]. In addition, the Movement’s main activity, other than advertising itself, seems to have been collecting people’s names and addresses for its database. This was done in a fairly underhand manner, with National Farmers’ Union members’ addresses being passed on without their knowledge or consent. Not only that, but the Countryside Movement had registered the BFSS as a recipient of its database, even though many were no doubt against hunting and had joined up because of concern at the state of the countryside in general[12].

Looking at these groups, one can see the pattern emerging which continues today in the Countryside Alliance. Early on, it was realised that there was a lot of mileage to be gained from taking advantage of the very real problems of rural areas to get widespread support, yet the high concentration of bloodsports enthusiasts within the upper echelons of the organizations meant that issues other than bloodsports would always be sidelined.

The Countryside Alliance has made quite serious attempts to present itself as an organization which is much wider than bloodsports, but a look at its structure reminds us that the changes have been largely cosmetic. Its departments are as follows:

	Telephone

PR 020 7840 9220 Membership 01672 519490 Political 020 7840 9260 Policy 020 7840 9250 Campaign for Hunting 020 7840 9210 Foresight: Campaign for Shooting 020 7840 9235 Campaign for Falconry 020 7840 9200 Gone fishing: Countryside Alliance initiative for Angling 020 7840 9274 Country Sports & Political Hotline 07774 236101 Honest Food: Campaign for Independent Food 020 7840 9219

www.countryside-alliance.org/membership/contact.htm

The arrangement of this table is quite telling - PR, then bloodsports, then a rather feeble and belated food campaign. Its departmental contact details betray a distinct bias towards bloodsports, with the campaigns apparently not devoted to bloodsports being vague and undefined. There is not even any section of the website (www.countryside-alliance.org) devoted to the Honest Food campaign.

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. [2] Countryside Alliance, Annual Report and Accounts 2000, p. 19-24 [3] Stewart, Ben, (Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals), The Countryside Alliance – a Briefing, unpublished. [4] www.mishcon.co.uk/fir/fir_d/fir_d_peop/fir_d_peop30.htm , last viewed 22nd June 2001 [5] Stewart, Ben, op cit. [6] Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Twelfth Report, Annex A, (Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards from Mr Dale Campbell-Savours MP), HMSO, 10 February 1998, including excerpt from Countryside Movement Annual Report and Accounts for the year ending 31st March 1997. [7] House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3rd March 1995, www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/ 1995-03-03/Debate-3.html , last viewed on 25th June 2001. [8] ibid [9] Pan-MacMillan Online, www.panmacmillan.com/AV/MaxHastings.htm [10] Say, Judy, "So What is The Countryside Movement Up To?" www.oneworld.org/tlio/research/le3say.html, last viewed 25th June 2001, "Rural Lobby Takes Aim At Theme Park Britain", Times, 17th November 1995. [11] Stewart, Ben, (Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals), The Countryside Alliance – a Briefing, unpublished. [12] Ibid