Why isn't animal welfare a bigger issue in British politics?

A rundown of some theories

Photo by Ben Moreland on Unsplash

Britain is famously a nation of animal lovers: two-thirds of us identify as such. Yet for all that goodwill, progress on animal welfare policy has been frustratingly slow. Indeed, with the number of factory farmed chickens having grown by around a quarter in the past decade, I’d argue if anything we’re going backwards.

The current government exemplifies this contradiction. Before the election, Labour promised the "biggest boost to animal welfare in a generation," yet appear poised to legalise carrying chickens by their legs and to u-turn on a proposed ban on foie gras imports. Animal welfare groups report frustration with their lack of access to and engagement from government officials. A mooted animal welfare strategy may bring greater action, but it’s been thin gruel so far.

I find this a little puzzling. Compared to other issues I've worked on—from poverty reduction to regulation of alcohol, gambling, and junk food—animal welfare feels like it should be advocacy on easy mode. As Luke Tryl of More in Common puts it, two of the best rules for understanding public opinion are that: “you cannot overestimate how much Brits 1) Like a ban 2) Love animals”. So why aren’t there more wins?

Theory 1: People don't actually care about animal welfare

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that people don't truly care about animal welfare. Their expressions of concern might reflect social desirability bias—who’s going to admit to a pollster they don’t really care? Or perhaps animal welfare is just too low salience: people might care, but not as much as they worry about issues like the economy and healthcare. There is some evidence for this view: in a 2023 poll, only 4% of people put animal welfare in the top three issues facing the country, though 16% put it amongst the top three issues that would decide their vote (higher than childcare)

But then how do we account for the fact that MPs regularly report that animal welfare is one of the most common issues constituents raise in correspondence? Petitions on animal welfare consistently gather hundreds of thousands of signatures. Some people care enough to engage in direct action. There are even examples of elections where animal welfare appears to have influenced outcomes—such as the 2017 social media campaigns on the ivory trade and fox hunting that reportedly damaged Theresa May's bid for re-election.

Theory 2: People care about some animals, not farmed ones

Perhaps the public cares deeply about animal welfare, but not specifically about farmed animals. I personally tend to equate animal welfare with farmed animal welfare, given the scale and extent of suffering in industrial farming, but not everybody sees it that way.

Animal welfare campaigners focus on diverse issues: badger culls, dog breeding, fireworks, greyhound racing, and more. It's plausible that people care more about companion animals than those raised for food.

Yet it's not obvious that campaigns for companion animals have been markedly more successful. And there's a chicken-and-egg question about whether this focus stems from campaigners' choices or public demand. From experience, I know it's tempting to prioritise seemingly "winnable" campaigns with lower impact, if only to sustain morale. Is that what’s happening here?

Theory 3: The animal welfare movement is too fragmented

Maybe animal welfare advocates aren't clear, consistent, or unified enough in their demands. There's certainly evidence that the movement is less strategically coordinated than one might hope, in terms of the campaigns they run, and the asks they make.

Indeed, some groups seem to spend as much time directing “friendly fire” at groups that are notionally on the side as they do fighting direct opponents - witness the campaign against the RSPCA Assured scheme for allegedly "welfare washing" factory farming. In that context, is it any wonder that the animal welfare movement seems like less than the sum of its parts?

Theory 4: Farmers are too powerful

Political campaigners often blame powerful opposition for their failures, and animal welfare advocates frequently cite the farm lobby's resistance. Farmers are indeed remarkably popular with the British public. But there's reason to question whether farmers are as politically formidable as their reputation suggests. The way agricultural interests were overridden in recent trade deals demonstrates limits to their influence, as does the government’s resolve on raising agricultural inheritance tax. The Economist recently tried to explain why British farmers are “so politically feeble”. Earlier this month, the farming minister admitted that farmers are “not high on the pecking order” for the government. Are farmers a paper tiger?

Theory 5: Pro-animal voters lack a credible electoral threat

Many in the animal welfare movement lean left politically and may be too charitable toward a Labour government. At the very least they are naturally sympathetic, at worst, they are liable to be taken for granted.

But without a credible threat to vote elsewhere, their leverage is limited. The question is whether pro-animal voters have alternatives, and whether animal welfare groups are willing to openly criticise the government and urge its supporters to cast their votes elsewhere if it doesn’t buck up. And to the extent those alternatives are to Labour's left, does the government care about losing those votes?

So what?

I haven’t properly tried to compare these theories and decide which one is most likely to be true. Even so, I think there are some practical lessons for advancing animal welfare in British politics:

1. Better Harness public goodwill: Support for animal welfare is a valuable resource that needs strategic direction.

2. Focus demands: Be clear about the (plausible) policies that would do most good, prioritise them, and don’t get sidetracked. I appreciate there’s a tension between realism and ambition here, but it’s a tension that needs to be resolved rather than endlessly litigated.

3. Coordinate advocacy: Improve coordination among welfare organisations to present a unified front behind these asks.

4. Don't overestimate the opposition: Understand the weaknesses of those who oppose you, and certainly don’t let them beat you before you even enter the ring.

5. Develop a credible electoral threat: I’m not sure what this looks like. Probably more comfort criticising parties of the left, and greater mobilisation of voters qua voters. Maybe even animal welfare parties, as have achieved representation in the Netherlands and Australia?