IF THE General Election campaign is about key choices, then the farming community in the Westcountry could be excused for feeling slightly short-changed at the alternatives with which it is being presented.

Because, certainly in terms of policies for agriculture, and with one important exception, which we'll come to in a moment, there really isn't anything to choose between the offerings of the three major parties. You can argue, of course, that there are clear differences in approach and attitude: that the Tories and Lib-Dems have much more of a natural sympathy with rural issues and country people than Labour, with its urban and industrial roots. But that rather glosses over the distinctly metropolitan approach which the Tories' – advised by Zac Goldsmith – take to the environment, and the uncomfortable compromises which the Lib-Dems have been forced into on some animal welfare issues.

However, when it comes to the central question, of the value and importance of farming, the consensus is as strong as strong could be. "Farming matters", say one and all. The productive capacity of British agriculture will be needed as never before if the people of Britain are to be well and affordably fed in a world in which demand for food is due to outstrip supply for the foreseeable future. I can imagine the agreement from the back of the hall at NFU election meetings, even as I write.

The next point of agreement is on the environment and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy in protecting it. All three parties want to see resources shifted from single payments ("Pillar One" in the language of Brussels) to "rural development" (Pillar Two), of which environmental payments are by far the largest single component. No matter that this hardly squares with the emphasis on productivity implied by the "farming matters" commitment, or that England's current rural development budget is so far under-spent that we could end up sending hundreds of millions of euros back to Brussels. The importance of the environment transcends all such minor quibbles, and nowhere more so than in the green South West. You might have expected a controversial issue like GM crops to get a few sparks to fly. But you would be disappointed. Curiously, it is Labour, in the person of Hilary Benn, which is the most bullish about the technology, but all three parties again take virtually the same position, which is the meaningless one (because you can't prove a negative) of saying that they could not support the commercial production of GM crops in Britain until it is proven not to be harmful.

On the cutting of red tape, honest food labelling and curbing the power of the supermarkets, there is similar unanimity. Mind you, so there was last time around, and the time before that, and a fat lot of difference it made in practice. I sincerely hope that the bonfire of agricultural regulation which Jim Paice, the Tory Shadow Farming Minister, promised a Mole Valley Farmers conference the other day does indeed herald a new dawn in inspection-light farming. But I reserve the right to entertain just a smidgeon of scepticism. Better regulation and government efficiency-savings are the political equivalent of the Beast of Bodmin Moor – often talked about, but rarely seen, except in the imagination.

So, what about points of difference? Well, there is hunting, of course, even though it is not, strictly speaking, a farming issue. For the time being at least, David Cameron is sticking to his guns in promising a free vote on repealing the ban, even though this has been seized upon by Labour as evidence of the Tories' true nature, as cruel and heartless toffs and is becoming almost a central theme of their campaign. The Lib-Dems remain split down the middle, with their urban MPs generally in favour of the ban, and the rural ones much more equivocal.

And then, finally, we come to our one clear agricultural dividing line between the parties, which is, of course, badgers and whether to cull them. Hilary Benn, is firmly against; Jim Paice, for the Tories, is equally firmly in favour; and Tim Farron, for the Lib-Dems, also favours a cull, although with rather less certainty, given his leader's known misgivings on the subject.

We shall know more about what sort of badger control might be feasible when we get the outcome of the Judicial Review on the Welsh cull in the next couple of weeks. But I think we can already say that the chances of effective action to control the source of this pernicious disease would be far stronger if the election results either in an outright Tory win, or a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition, than another Labour victory.

That is one issue which ought to make it worthwhile participating in the campaign. If you want another, then I suggest it should be winning a commitment to reform the CAP, which is geared rather more to farming and rather less to rural development.

But above all, participate. Many an MP has told me that the meetings they dreaded most during any election campaign were the NFU meetings, at which the candidates were expected to set out their stall, answer all sorts of abstruse agricultural questions and woe betide them if they didn't know their additional voluntary modulation from their cross-compliance. The process may not have made a huge difference to the outcome of the election, but it left the politicians with a healthy respect for the farming lobby.

So, go to meetings; have your say; make them listen. The existing, generally supportive, consensus on farming policy may reflect economic reality, but it is also a tribute to the industry's lobbying in the past. Ultimately – and this goes not just for farming, but for the community as a whole – we shall get the Government we deserve.

Anthony Gibson is a freelance writer and may be contacted at anthony.gbsn@googlemail.com