Debate about rural policy is often based on persistent presumptions about conditions in "rural England," generally associated with economic decline, low incomes, and a lack of services. Such generalisations are rarely justified for rural areas as a whole and we term them as "stylised fallacies." The impression of their relevance is perpetuated by the selective comparison of statistics for "urban" and "rural" areas. The paper reviews the evidence on a number of such fallacies: the economic impact of agriculture, depopulation, low incomes, rural labour markets, house prices and service provision. In each case, the position is far more complex than is commonly recognised in policy debate. The rural character of an area does not in itself offer a rationale for policy intervention. Rather, discussion could be supported through the characterisation of different types of local area. This might be approached either through statistical analysis or through qualitative analysis of emerging social and economic patterns of differentiation. In practice, each approach needs to be supported through the other.