Minette Batters NFU president

[Grass And Grain]

York East AGM Tuesday. MB is the speaker. NFU sec phoned to invite me as I'm no longer a member. The only thing that gets their attention is resignations.

Are you going to go?

 

[Austin7]

Very interesting post. Did you get a reply naming names?

I respect the work you have done but at what point do you have to admit change from within is impossible.

It is over rwenty years and numerous presidents since you sent that email.

Do presidents have any power or are the paid staff in charge and just maximising income regardless of members interests?

Most of us in the group complained. Ben's reply answers your question as to who was really in charge then, I suspect not much has changed:

1. Contrary to what is stated in the Alan Roberts notes neither I nor any of
the officeholder team have been involved in such an iterative process to
ammend what was agreed by yourselves. It is the first that I had heard of
four drafts. Neither has the DG or any director been involved in the
drafting of any part of the document that has been sent. The DG has still
not seen any of the documents to which I refer as he was out of the office
on Friday.

2. The contents of the Recommendations to Council do not adequately or
correctly reflect what the Chairman reported to me, immediately after the
last meeting, had been agreed, or indeed what some of you have since
corroborated to me as agreed.

3. As a result I have asked the Director General to carry out an urgent
investigation as to what has actually happened immediately the office opens
for work tommorrow.

It has been interesting to look back. We all had to put our final views into the pot for the last meeting which Ben attended, attached is my effort I remind you this was over 20 years ago.View attachment NFU MME March 02.pdf

 

[willyorkshire]

Are you going to go?

Yes

 

[homefarm]

Most of us in the group complained. Ben's reply answers your question as to who was really in charge then, I suspect not much has changed:

1. Contrary to what is stated in the Alan Roberts notes neither I nor any of
the officeholder team have been involved in such an iterative process to
ammend what was agreed by yourselves. It is the first that I had heard of
four drafts. Neither has the DG or any director been involved in the
drafting of any part of the document that has been sent. The DG has still
not seen any of the documents to which I refer as he was out of the office
on Friday.

2. The contents of the Recommendations to Council do not adequately or
correctly reflect what the Chairman reported to me, immediately after the
last meeting, had been agreed, or indeed what some of you have since
corroborated to me as agreed.

3. As a result I have asked the Director General to carry out an urgent
investigation as to what has actually happened immediately the office opens
for work tommorrow.

It has been interesting to look back. We all had to put our final views into the pot for the last meeting which Ben attended, attached is my effort I remind you this was over 20 years ago.View attachment 1149126

Wow! Wow ! Wow!

So someone lower down the chain made these changes without the knowledge of any director. Hard to believe.

On Monday the director general does what?

Nothing obviously as non of your ideas where implemented.

I do not understand how or why a president could continue in office when good people like you are undermined and ignored.

I must admit this has shocked me and am struggling to understand how farmers have allowed them to continue unchallenged for another 21 years.

 

[matthew]

Wow! Wow ! Wow!

So someone lower down the chain made these changes without the knowledge of any director. Hard to believe.

On Monday the director general does what?

Nothing obviously as non of your ideas where implemented.

I do not understand how or why a president could continue in office when good people like you are undermined and ignored.

I must admit this has shocked me and am struggling to understand how farmers have allowed them to continue unchallenged for another 21 years.

I wouldn’t assume that changes were implemented ‘lower down the chain’.
My guess would be higher up - Defra or MAFF as they used to be known.

The directors then did as instructed.

 

[Clive]

The conclusion is therefore that the NFU is currently not fit for purpose. This is nothing new. When Richard Watson Jones probably the youngest ever Office holder tragically died of a brain tumour in 2000 he left undone his work on the reform of the NFU. Ben Gill set up a group called Meeting Members Expectations (MME) to pick up Richards work. Because I was always going on about the need for change Ben invited me to take part. MME presented its final report in March 2002 but it was never put to Council, instead the report was doctored, One word was removed wherever it occurred, that word was "democracy".

I emailed Ben: “Who removed " democracy" as an element of IT. Who removed "democratic management" as criteria for judging a corporate structure. Who moved from a "cabinet" with at least some democratic connotations to a "board" with none. Who rejected an immediate and "massive" commitment to IT. Who removed our conclusion that the County was the structure beyond HQ to back. Who is the NFU's autocrat ? The compromise we produced is deceptively simple. Yet it holds the seeds for a total revolution in the way the NFU works provided ALL of the parts are implemented. In my belief the cabinet will both concentrate and release the power of the NFU in a fast changing and complex world. However, there are dangers in this which must be balanced by the huge increase in active accessibility made possible by IT.

My point was then and still is that NFU members have to be informed and enabled to take part in the democratic process and that can only be done through the medium which now over 20 years later we have become so familiar with.

wow !

well that confirms completely why the NFU will never represent farmers

who actually runs it ? who is the puppeteer as it’s clear the farmers / top table are just puppets for “smarter” people

 

[Clive]

Wow! Wow ! Wow!

So someone lower down the chain made these changes without the knowledge of any director. Hard to believe.

On Monday the director general does what?

Nothing obviously as non of your ideas where implemented.

I do not understand how or why a president could continue in office when good people like you are undermined and ignored.

I must admit this has shocked me and am struggling to understand how farmers have allowed them to continue unchallenged for another 21 years.

it’s like a sketch from “yes minister” …….. Humphrey runs the NFU !

 

[Clive]

 

[ajd132]

wow !

well that confirms completely why the NFU will never represent farmers

who actually runs it ? who is the puppeteer as it’s clear the farmers / top table are just puppets for “smarter” people

I’ve long said, that in order to succeed as a farmer at a high level in the nfu you need to be highly ambitious, tow the line and certainly not a critical or free thinker (this doesn’t mean the person is stupid, just blinkered).

These traits make person easily manipulated and controlled by those really in charge. It’s the same in many scenarios in life. UK politics is another example. Identify extreme ambition but average intelligence in someone and they are extremely easy to manipulate for your own ends.

Robert Greenes 48 laws of power is a great book on this sort of thing.

 

[MrNoo]

So are we going to have a poll guessing which org Battersby is going to parachute into after Feb/March??
Interesting you state they have given their best years to the industry, ironic when us farmers have done the same, feeding the parasites that the NFU helped put in place. Take take take.

 

[Austin7]

wow !

well that confirms completely why the NFU will never represent farmers

who actually runs it ? who is the puppeteer as it’s clear the farmers / top table are just puppets for “smarter” people

It is interesting that everyone came to the conclusion that staff doctored the MME reforms of 2002. I suspect what actually happen was that the Councils elders who enjoyed the London lifestyle put pressure on David Quayle then treasurer to water down our report, Ben was off sick. If you travel down to London NFU (first) Class every other week for a couple of days expenses paid socialising any upset in these arrangements are unwelcome. Most of Council were happy as it was. David was a good man and to be fair our proposals were radical. Reading back through our deliberations 20 years later the quandary we had was that any change would mean that some things that worked and were treasured would inevitably be lost in the process of real "reform". The 2002 MME report now lies in the same dusty draw with the Cowan, Cattell, and McKinsy Reports all have nudged the NFU on, sometimes for the better.

 

[homefarm]

It is interesting that everyone came to the conclusion that staff doctored the MME reforms of 2002. I suspect what actually happen was that the Councils elders who enjoyed the London lifestyle put pressure on David Quayle then treasurer to water down our report, Ben was off sick. If you travel down to London NFU (first) Class every other week for a couple of days expenses paid socialising any upset in these arrangements are unwelcome. Most of Council were happy as it was. David was a good man and to be fair our proposals were radical. Reading back through our deliberations 20 years later the quandary we had was that any change would mean that some things that worked and were treasured would inevitably be lost in the process of real "reform". The 2002 MME report now lies in the same dusty draw with the Cowan, Cattell, and McKinsy Reports all have nudged the NFU on, sometimes for the better.

I am sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion but I did say it was unbelievable.

However the scenario you now put before us is even worse.

No change because it might upset things that worked and were treasured like the freebies and social life of the council elders.

I cannot see how David Quayle was a good man or how Ben Gill being off sick in anyway mitigates the fact that ordinary members views where treated as you have described.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

If you travel down to London NFU (first) Class every other week for a couple of days expenses paid socialising any upset in these arrangements are unwelcome

Hard work this change from within.

 

[B'o'B]

Most of us in the group complained. Ben's reply answers your question as to who was really in charge then, I suspect not much has changed:

1. Contrary to what is stated in the Alan Roberts notes neither I nor any of
the officeholder team have been involved in such an iterative process to
ammend what was agreed by yourselves. It is the first that I had heard of
four drafts. Neither has the DG or any director been involved in the
drafting of any part of the document that has been sent. The DG has still
not seen any of the documents to which I refer as he was out of the office
on Friday.

2. The contents of the Recommendations to Council do not adequately or
correctly reflect what the Chairman reported to me, immediately after the
last meeting, had been agreed, or indeed what some of you have since
corroborated to me as agreed.

3. As a result I have asked the Director General to carry out an urgent
investigation as to what has actually happened immediately the office opens
for work tommorrow.

It has been interesting to look back. We all had to put our final views into the pot for the last meeting which Ben attended, attached is my effort I remind you this was over 20 years ago.View attachment 1149126

You are are to be commended for your efforts, but from reading this and your letter which you published on TFF a few weeks ago (I read it but don't recall who you sent it to and cannot find again ATM) it it is clear that the NFU was going wrong (or had already gone wrong) at least 20 years ago.
For all your efforts, little seems to have actually been achieved to bring the NFU back towards its membership, at best you and people like you may have slowed the rot, but not stopped it.
I am a relative whipper-snapper, so I do find your input very interesting, one thing I think it does show is that the NFUs structures are such that "change from within" is a monumental task that stands little chance of gaining sufficient traction to effect real change.
You highlight a number of efforts to reform the NFU structure, but things seem to have got worse not better. No doubt a great deal of effort went into writing those reports, but the NFU structure absorbed that effort without great reform and likely left in there wake a stream of disillusioned people who's best efforts were ignored or watered down at the last hurdle. I find it all incredibly depressing really and it certainly isn't making me feel like rejoining the NFU any time soon.

 

[SilliamWhale]

So are we going to have a poll guessing which org Battersby is going to parachute into after Feb/March??
Interesting you state they have given their best years to the industry, ironic when us farmers have done the same, feeding the parasites that the NFU helped put in place. Take take take.

You are are to be commended for your efforts, but from reading this and your letter which you published on TFF a few weeks ago (I read it but don't recall who you sent it to and cannot find again ATM) it it is clear that the NFU was going wrong (or had already gone wrong) at least 20 years ago.
For all your efforts, little seems to have actually been achieved to bring the NFU back towards its membership, at best you and people like you may have slowed the rot, but not stopped it.
I am a relative whipper-snapper, so I do find your input very interesting, one thing I think it does show is that the NFUs structures are such that "change from within" is a monumental task that stands little chance of gaining sufficient traction to effect real change.
You highlight a number of efforts to reform the NFU structure, but things seem to have got worse not better. No doubt a great deal of effort went into writing those reports, but the NFU structure absorbed that effort without great reform and likely left in there wake a stream of disillusioned people who's best efforts were ignored or watered down at the last hurdle. I find it all incredibly depressing really and it certainly isn't making me feel like rejoining the NFU any time soon.

They don't want to change. That's why you have Blenky types lodged in there for decades.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Really interesting stuff @Austin7 . Fascinating . Appreciate you posting, as gives us an understanding of what went on.

 

[Austin7]

You are are to be commended for your efforts, but from reading this and your letter which you published on TFF a few weeks ago (I read it but don't recall who you sent it to and cannot find again ATM) it it is clear that the NFU was going wrong (or had already gone wrong) at least 20 years ago.
For all your efforts, little seems to have actually been achieved to bring the NFU back towards its membership, at best you and people like you may have slowed the rot, but not stopped it.
I am a relative whipper-snapper, so I do find your input very interesting, one thing I think it does show is that the NFUs structures are such that "change from within" is a monumental task that stands little chance of gaining sufficient traction to effect real change.
You highlight a number of efforts to reform the NFU structure, but things seem to have got worse not better. No doubt a great deal of effort went into writing those reports, but the NFU structure absorbed that effort without great reform and likely left in there wake a stream of disillusioned people who's best efforts were ignored or watered down at the last hurdle. I find it all incredibly depressing really and it certainly isn't making me feel like rejoining the NFU any time soon.

Remember all this was 20 years ago, things will probably be different now. One thing won't have changed however, the NFU Council is the boss what it says goes. However the fundamentals don't change, effective democratic change in the NFU is totally dependent on getting the channels of communication open to all, knowledge is power. Only when that happens can the wider membership make proper judgements which can then lead to broader base for decision making.

But to change anything you have to persuade Council: I copy here part of an MME minute of December 2001.

"Council had deferred consideration of the recommendations on two occasions during the year and the tenor of the comments from Council members and the regions was dismissive. The Group was resolved not to re-present its recommendations in the existing form and face further humiliation in Council."

Ben Gill told us not to stop and in fact widened our remit and sat in on our last meeting. Unfortunately it all in the end fell apart. Our recommendations did not even get to Council, they blocked progress. Today it has been the Council who have not used their power to hold Minette to account.

 

[Will Blackburn]

Lap dogs.

 

[gone up the hill]

Remember all this was 20 years ago, things will probably be different now. One thing won't have changed however, the NFU Council is the boss what it says goes. However the fundamentals don't change, effective democratic change in the NFU is totally dependent on getting the channels of communication open to all, knowledge is power. Only when that happens can the wider membership make proper judgements which can then lead to broader base for decision making.

But to change anything you have to persuade Council: I copy here part of an MME minute of December 2001.

"Council had deferred consideration of the recommendations on two occasions during the year and the tenor of the comments from Council members and the regions was dismissive. The Group was resolved not to re-present its recommendations in the existing form and face further humiliation in Council."

Ben Gill told us not to stop and in fact widened our remit and sat in on our last meeting. Unfortunately it all in the end fell apart. Our recommendations did not even get to Council, they blocked progress. Today it has been the Council who have not used their power to hold Minette to account.

Current council are a complete and utter waste of space!

The current top team have gone totally rogue and the council cannot be bothered to do anything about it ( in fact apparently some council members are actually now defending Minette and Tom lying to members and the way they have behaved over the RT green module and said this is perfectly acceptable!

Needs to be one member one vote now, council is not fit for purpose and should have no say in who is elected to the top jobs!

 

[Old apprentice]

Current council are a complete and utter waste of space!

The current top team have gone totally rogue and the council cannot be bothered to do anything about it ( in fact apparently some council members are actually now defending Minette and Tom lying to members and the way they have behaved over the RT green module and said this is perfectly acceptable!

Needs to be one member one vote now, council is not fit for purpose and should have no say in who is elected to the top jobs!

If that is the case they will introduce GFC,