Thats what Clive means when he says the subs go to the landowner. Which you can't really disagree with.Wouldnt it be fair to say when you bid to get contracts you factored in the bps as part of the income and offered to give at least some of that to the landlord? if you didnt someone else would have and they would be farming it now.
@agricontract has mentioned it in tonight’s video so that’ll put it in front of 20,000 people.Signed, only 244 signatures so far, any thoughts on further publicising this to a bigger audience?
I think Clive has made a very good argument for supporting farmers, but not landowners, that fact that a fair proportion of landowners are farmers is not the point. At least his argument would stop landowners like the NT claiming all the subsidies or for that matter landowners like Copperbeeches landlord being able to access funding for rewilding.There is some merit in what you say re farming = trade, land = investment.
However, under your premise, BPS was (or should have been) for the farming trade, not the land owner. But Stewardship is debatable as to whether it more so the farming trade than the land owner or the other way round, depending on circumstances.
So how does ELMs square with the fact that apart from SFI, both LR and LNR are seen as more beneficial to the the land owners, particularly when it comes to organisations such as NT and RSPB?
My point being that out of the combined BPS and Countryside Stewardship pot, far more of it was paid in BPS claims as compared to CS claims. But under ELMs, in effect it will be by far the other way round!
How can that be right? Don’t people need to eat any more?
Later i'm going to send the link to the petition to the members of Janet's Elms Engagement Group. I'm sure the NT, RSPB et al will forward it to their members, soon get to 100k signatories then .
Wouldnt it be fair to say when you bid to get contracts you factored in the bps as part of the income and offered to give at least some of that to the landlord? if you didnt someone else would have and they would be farming it now.
Not read all the posts so I imagine someone has already pointed this out; @Clive is only fecked off because the DD sub has been binned . Good job too, what a load of bollox that was going to be. Defra are getting there. Slowly.
Not that I care but the money for DD was In the third tier original proposal of SFI, they have not yet to release the revised 3rd tier like they have tier 1 and 2 so it could well still be in there.
To scrap all subsidies would surely require a level of protection from imports produced in countries with lower environmental ambitions? Is that something you would advocate?
This /\And the rspb and national trust. Wealthy big organisations with immense power and strong lobbying. Neither fit to run a bath never mind a farm. They should be excluded. (Unless defra have amended this but in which case I apologise).
Well then surely you want to sign this thing - it's a sub, landowners are to be getting it, so you'd be against it, no?i really don’t care
if it was down to me i would end all subs as i’ve suggested they don’t benefit farmers
We seem to be heading in completely the opposite direction to this. I think a great opportunity is being missed in the panic to sign free trade deals.i would advocate a carbon tax to truly reflect cost of imports environmentally
i would also ban imports not produced to uk environmental or welfare standards
do the above (the logic / consistency of either are hard to argue with) and you don’t need import tariffs or subs
Carbon tax would be good. it is an absolutely impossibility they would ban stuff not produced to our standards, it will never happen. Thats the line the NFU have been pushing and failing with for years. At best UK stuff could get a small premium.i would advocate a carbon tax to truly reflect cost of imports environmentally
i would also ban imports not produced to uk environmental or welfare standards
do the above (the logic / consistency of either are hard to argue with) and you don’t need import tariffs or subs
This /\
Surely large,wealthy charities should be excluded from monies which were,in previous payment schemes ie IACS etc,a subsidy for working farmers in food production. In more recent times there have been many having a slice of the cake.
Yes they were,I was thinking a little further back,to the old IACS days.Those large wealthy charities were the biggest recipients of BPS money already. They have been part of the design of this scheme, which just changes the way they access the funding. They are saying it doesn’t go far enough…
Iacs was a production sub and everything since has been decoupled. We are as close to the market as we have ever been. Elms/sfi/LR will not prevent a dramatic decline in the prospects of rural communities, not just farmers. Like it or not, farming is inextricably linked to the prosperity of many villages and towns and provides jobs way beyond the obvious herdsmen and tractor drivers. A shift of support away from active farmers, or even inactive ones which in turn subsidises rent , to projects that ultimately require no labour, no satellite industries and in my belief will be visually unattractive in a very short time will be catastrophic to the communities we so cherish. Defra and its ministers need to look again at what they hope to achieve and at all possible consequences.Yes they were,I was thinking a little further back,to the old IACS days.
i would advocate a carbon tax to truly reflect cost of imports environmentally
i would also ban imports not produced to uk environmental or welfare standards
do the above (the logic / consistency of either are hard to argue with) and you don’t need import tariffs or subs