No have you
Owen Paterson nails his colours to the mast
- Thread starter JP1
- Start date
But its not his farm is it,it belongs to someone else!From my limited memory, I think it may be that @glasshouse feels aggrieved for what he "invested" in his farm over the years
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
jp, i am not aggrieved at this moment, merely pointing out some uncomfortable truths regarding agricultural land.From my limited memory, I think it may be that @glasshouse feels aggrieved for what he "invested" in his farm over the years
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Agreed. Back at that time, I was sitting on a regional YFC group, that had regular meetings with MAFF representatives, discussing (amongst other things) tenancy legislation. That was a big priority at the time as NO land was coming up for rent under AHA legislation, as it wasn't attractive to landlords at all.
Introducing FBTs at least started making a few opportunities come up. (I did argue at the time that most landlords would choose to let to existing large farmers, given the security of doing so, but i was argued out
)@glasshouse , I know you seem to think the Tories are all barstewards, but that line of communication between YFC and ministers was scrapped immediately when your mate Tony Blair came to power in 1997.
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
Blair is no mate of mine, the biggest charlatan to walk the earth, BUT john major is still my favourite PMAgreed. Back at that time, I was sitting on a regional YFC group, that had regular meetings with MAFF representatives, discussing (amongst other things) tenancy legislation. That was a big priority at the time as NO land was coming up for rent under AHA legislation, as it wasn't attractive to landlords at all.
Introducing FBTs at least started making a few opportunities come up. (I did argue at the time that most landlords would choose to let to existing large farmers, given the security of doing so, but i was argued out
@glasshouse , I know you seem to think the Tories are all barstewards, but that line of communication between YFC and ministers was scrapped immediately when your mate Tony Blair came to power in 1997.
I enclose a letter from fw from 1995 exposing the misinformation regarding new lettings post fbt put out by land agents to persuade govt to introduce it.
Attachments
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
But more land has been let under FBT legislation, than was happening in the 5-10 years prior to 1995. You might well argue that the legislation is skewed too far towards landlords now, but it HAS made land available, as was the intention.
As has been said many times on here, nobody twists anyone's arm when they choose to tender a rent, but farmers still choose to do so. FBT rents are set by what others are willing to bid for similar units. There are just too many fools about, willing to drive up those figures.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
And this is why BP doesn't help us in the long run. It just means that rents are higher than they might be, because BP money is used to outbid neighbours when competing for land.
In a similar way BP has inflated the cost of other inputs. We as productive careful farmers don't benefit from it. It benefits the supply trade who sell us "luxuries" and it benefits retiring farmers who sell marginal land for way over its true worth or carry on farming with share farming agreements where effectively the taxpayer is providing the income for one of the parties to the agreement.
When it's gone there will be an adjustment but it's long overdue. What actually pays and works on the ground will actually matter then, rather than the fool's paradise we presently live in.
Farmers fighting over land to rent not far from here 250 quid per acre, must be money in farming even the bps don't bring that back much
the trouble with BPS money is that some of the folk that get it haven't got a f**king clue how to use a calculator
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I'd go as far to say that BP is supporting a lifestyle rather than an industry.
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
Bps is a landowning subsidy, pure and simple, far away worse than sfp.
In scotland the landowning lobby fought tooth and nail to make sure they got all the benefit and it worked.
Slipper farmers were eradicated, only to be replaced by slipper landlords.
Bps is simply a cost now if you are a tenant, leaving you with all the compliance and none of the money.
Utter madness.
If you rent land off a utility or other non interested body, the rpa wont accept your signature on forms, it must be the landowner, who are totally not interested in signing them!
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
How pleasant it is to have a polite discussion without the sneering remark brigade!
I can feel a rumble in the background.
And long may it continue
Certainly a lot of tax payers money subsidising lifestyles, while the agricultural infrastructure crumbles, run a topper over it once a year and call it ''for the public good''.
if more done that instead of running round giving silly money for land and flooding the market at a loss the job would be better all round
Either way it looks B ridiculous,
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
You're nearly right there, its just that ALL subsidies of farmers are de facto subsidies of landowners, among others. This is because as we all know when you give a farmer free money the first thing he does is go out and spend it on more land and shiny machinery. So rents go up as do the prices of machinery and other inputs.
There is no way you can subsidise farmers that can stop this - land and machinery are required to farm, and so any money the State gives to farmers will eventually end up (in part at least) in the pocket of the individuals who own (or manufacture) those assets. Of course some farmers are both landowner and farmer, so they do the best out of subsidies, more than tenants do.
This is all why i'm increasingly thinking the abolition of all direct farm subsidies has to be the way to go, it will expose who is in fact living on that money, and as I've said before, I don't think (by and large) its farmers.
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
When subs were paid per cow or sheep, or ton of grain, at least the landlord needed a tenant, now tenants are surplus to requirements as an agent can fill the forms in fine himself.