Executive Summary
The following is drawn from conversations with farmers in this constituency during the early stages of the campaign. I am trying to understand the political outlook of its deeply rural communities, which account for roughly half the electorate.
These voters are not always treated as having interests equal to those of people in towns and cities. That needs to change. Their connection to farming, the land and inherited responsibilities often gives them a particularly strong concern for continuity: what they will pass on, whether their children can remain, and what condition the country will be in when they do. City and town electors do not tend to be as grounded as this and we can all learn from it.
Most of what follows is therefore field observation rather than my own opinion. It reflects what some members of the rural community have told me; it should not be taken as the unanimous view of that community.
I conclude with my own analysis of a deeper national problem, which I describe as indigenous decadence: a weakening—particularly within parts of urban Britain—of responsibility towards future generations, national continuity and the inheritance we leave behind.
In my view, the immigration crisis is partly a consequence of that deeper cultural retreat. This helps explain why the problem feels insurmountable even though it is entirely capable of being solved. The central obstacle is not the absence of practical solutions, but that much of the country has not yet recognised the underlying condition that made the crisis possible.
Bicester & Woodstock Farmers: What a Typical Deep-Rural Community Wants from the State
Speaking to nearby farming communities, there is considerable anxiety about what is happening in Piddington. The prevailing view is that its residents voted for the policies whose consequences they are now experiencing. That produces sympathy, but also frustration at what is regarded as political short-sightedness. Interestingly, younger people tend to express less fear and more anger.
When I asked what the farmers actually wanted from government, the answer was simple: “Leave us alone.”
That is entirely understandable. Farming is frequently a marginal business. Taxation, regulation and unnecessary official interference impose costs without producing an equivalent practical gain. Those costs ultimately make domestic food production less competitive. We then import more food and profess surprise that British agriculture is declining.
Fox hunting invariably enters the conversation. The response is usually: “It is part of who we are.” Whatever the wider party’s position, we should recognise that this is cultural and electoral—not merely technical. Some rural voters will decide how to vote on this issue alone.
Inheritance Tax is another immediate concern. Our answer should be clear: we would abolish it, removing the dead-weight costs and succession problems it creates for family farms. Where a continuing contribution is considered appropriate, we could offer a fairer alternative based not on the farm’s inflated capital value—which may bear little relationship to the owner’s ability to pay—but on what the land can reasonably produce, reflected in its rental value.
A recurring question was: “Why are we allowing this to happen to our children?”
My response was that much of the country either does not think about its descendants in the same way or has accepted policies that impose long-term costs upon them. Immigration is partly a consequence of this deeper failure rather than its sole cause. I would describe the underlying problem as a form of indigenous decadence: a society losing confidence in its own continuity and becoming unwilling to protect the inheritance of future generations. I am not yet certain how closely that analysis aligns with the party’s position, but it deserves internal discussion.
There was also strong support for agricultural subsidies. My view is more sceptical. Subsidies intended to support farming can become capitalised into land prices. Higher land prices then feed into higher rents, particularly harming tenant farmers. Much of the assistance may therefore accrue to the land asset rather than improving the working farmer’s underlying position.
This may also help explain the decline in agricultural tenancies about which they explicitly complained. If rents rise to absorb the value of public support, marginal tenants eventually conclude that the business is no longer viable and leave the sector. This was a key concern: what has happened to all the tenant farmers? - yet we know what and why already.
The effect of subsidies are also harmful to new entrants and rural startups. The raising of land prices through subsidies makes it harder for new entrants to buy in. Further negating the possibilities for British farming. Further losing those who care most about the land and the future.
The subsidies and concessions also turn farm land into a tax haven. So the farm is being bought for reasons other than farming - as an asset and store of wealth. This is not unreasonable or wrong. It is a natural effect every business must work from due to the incoherent state policy on farming, making life very difficult for working farmers and otherwise vibrant British farming businesses.
The broader lesson is that rural voters do not necessarily want more government programmes. They want government to understand how its taxes, regulations and subsidies interact—and to stop making viable farming progressively less viable.
Piddington certainly comes into it because open borders and voter infiltration means yet more dead weight costs farmers cannot afford. But it is by no means their biggest concern.
An Important Cause and Effect to Consider
One possible source of the indigenous decadence - the weakening of concern for children, descendants and national continuity - is the rising cost of establishing and supporting a family.
From the 1960s onwards, the expansion of mortgage credit increased purchasing power without adequately controlling the resulting house-price inflation. Housing that could once be supported by one income increasingly required two. Parenthood became harder to afford, birth rates fell, and abortion became more readily accepted as the answer to an unwanted or unaffordable pregnancy.
This does not mean that women should be excluded from public life or positions of authority. It means that our institutions—led by men and women alike—have increasingly treated unborn life, parenthood and family formation as secondary to economic participation and individual autonomy.
The scale is enormous: an estimated 73 million abortions occur worldwide each year, while the annual figure for England and Wales now exceeds a quarter of a million. Astonishingly, this excess death toll is higher than all other causes of death combined. Behind those numbers are unborn lives and a society increasingly detached from its own future.
All this, coupled with the national weakening described above makes it easy for primitive cultures to invade and conquer. And for decadence to find itself easily holding onto most of the high seats of power.
This is not insurmountable. By getting out of the way of Britain's primary production process, by making housing and family formation affordable again, and by restoring the value placed upon parenthood and future generations, we could improve people’s lives without coercion.
Politically, this speaks to a substantial body of voters whose concerns are currently being ignored. Who could be converted into an election winning majority for Restore Britain.
