The UK Farmers Union - is it time ?

onesiedale said:

It certainly makes you think more deeply about Clive's point though. (Assuming that you did read it like me - twice!)

Click to expand...

shearerlad said:

Can any organisation organise/set prices?
I may be completely wrong and happy to be corrected but this would be against WTO rules.
Prices are dictated by local and global supply and demand

Click to expand...

puppet said:

That would be a cartel so definitely illegal. It is certainly not the role of the NFU. We wouldn't like it if every item we bought was the same price from anyone.
Big business sets prices from small suppliers, not just in farming.

Click to expand...

FarmyStu said:

So you sell forward if you can. Fix your prices In advance. Or take the risk. Its just business like most other businesses.

Click to expand...

FarmyStu said:

Yeah I've read it. I remember this poster from years ago. Clearly they have deeply held philosophical beliefs.

Clive on the other hand.......

Wants a new farming union - but won't get involved himself.

Wants RT to be abandoned as it offers him nothing - but remains a member himself without, as far as I know, taking a moral stance and leaving.

Never misses an opportunity to advertise TFF on other social media and needs us posters to make his TFF business venture work. All this NFU/RT unrest (much generated by Clive himself) is doing his website no harm at all.

All seems like a bit of a gravy train to me.......

Click to expand...

Two Tone said:

I definitely think that a completely new ‘Union’ is far better than trying to change the NFU.
The NFU has dug and continues to dig an even bigger hole of sh!te for itself.

Click to expand...

ski said:

I stopped posting on tff some years ago and occasionally I have a look at various threads and think sadly I am not missing much, most of it is pantomime in my view.

However this question is interesting as it is heavy with heightened awareness of the times we are living in, "can we get some control / influence / power back towards farmers, and that is a worthwhile question.

Philosophy, ethics, morals and culture are all bound up in it and it speaks to greater sense of unease than at any time in decades if not hundreds of years.

To work out ones own answer to the question we must to cultivate sense of perspective or history, not in detail, but in philosophical terms of the forces that work upon all businesses not just farmers, and equally importantly the effects that these forces have on regulators. The direction of travel we are currently subject to have been in play since sometime in the late 50's to the 60's which can be summarised as a philosophical belief by our politicians of all sides in globalisation. This can be defined at its core by, an assertion that we are all one people, the people of Nambia are totally equal to the people of the Netherlands or Nepal and that policies both national and international recognise this and push towards this equality by greater international supply chains, common international and national rules, the lessening of the importance of the national compared to the international. It also sees national boundaries as superfluous and these impede the progress of globalisation. Its roots can be traced back directly to the enlightenment, it was the enlightenment (reason, logic and rationality) that won the second world war and gave birth to the modern incarnation of this philosophy. It used 'national sentiment' to motivate people to support the fight, it valorised the mastery of science in the fight, it was a progressive union and it waged war on the outdated idea of Nationalism.

The war having been won, it started on building supra national institutions, (UN, World Bank, WHO etc) and pushed and supported various declarations supporting the view of global equality ( particularly Human Rights declarations). Capital became global in the 80's under Thatcher and Reagan, Communism was also defeated in 80's, and China was welcomed in the fold by Clinton in the 90's. The philosophy dictates that the project is above the individual, and should be universal or global, there is no room for religious belief, historical norms, traditional culture or custom. ( States that remain hostile to this philosophy will be given 'incentives' to realign) The nation state and eventually the supra national institutions supplant God as the deliverer of all that is true right and just. Science will be used to "work out" policy, though in reality this is scientism, not science. The project is not a conspiracy, but a Dogmatic belief, born out the reformation that this is the natural progression of the human state toward a higher plane.

The outcome of this project is the west today, de-industrialisation in the USA and Europe, the rise of a technocratic elite and mass migration and the vilification of our history. It has led to state centralisation of standards in nearly all industries and particularly agriculture and producer bodies such as the NFU become hand maidens to this process. They actively sought to have bodies such as Red Tractor to try and influence this process, in reality they are merely fighting a rear guard action, they effectively 'go native' whilst simultaneously trying to appear farmer friendly. ( I have seen this as a Council member of 8 years for a producer group)

Thus we are nearly up to date.

When discussing the fall of the USSR it is common to see only detail as the cause, ie inefficient bureaucracy, corruption and ineptitude when in fact its downfall is due entirely to fact that the system was at odds with Human Nature. Any system of governance that does not accord with Human Nature will ultimately fail, though great amounts of authoritarian energy will be spent trying to save it and its downfall may be bloody. Thus we see that the philosophy was well advanced before there began a stirring of resistance to it, it is apparent in Brexit, AFD, gilets jaunes, Le Pen, Trump, and various political parties throughout the EU. The philosophy is not embedded in the Far East or Middle East, quite simply because they never had an enlightenment.

So Clive, your idea is of its time, are you ready for it because for it to be really successful it must eschew all the above philosophy of globalisation, which will implications across every aspect of our farming lives, it will place more importance on national production over imported food, on regional over national, on local over regional, it will value tradition over technology, family over corporate, reliance on self over the state, the particular over the abstract, man over machine, it will decide on value and then use science in support of the value (not, 'follow the science', but let the science support the aim) and a hundred other implications, and if it does not do this then it will fail or at best become another organisation that goes native to the philosophy of globalisation.

Are you really up for it? There is obvious awareness in your question that something is wrong but you have been one the winners of the present system but your wording suggests an uneasiness that your time as a winner may be limited. It takes a Man (or Woman) of significant courage and valour to go where the answer of the question takes him even if it leads to his material demise. It is the opposite of the faustian bargain that most of us unknowingly entered into. It has never been more pertinent in the last 60 years.

"It is a kingdom of consciousness or nothing" Your view on this saying will tell you what you'll do.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Click to expand...

Grass And Grain said:

I wasn't articulating myself very well. Am I correct in thinking there are exceptions to competition law for agricultural co-operatives?

So rather than all the milk producers in tbe country joining together and saying milk is 35 pence/litre, would it be legal for all the Tesco suppliers to form a little group of dairy farmers who could then negotiate with Tesco. That little group would be well below the 40-50% of market share to stop it being in a dominant position.

The farmers in the Tesco group wouldn't be able to talk to the farmers in the Sainsburys group.

Or am I completely wrong? I could be.

Click to expand...

delilah said:

I don't think that that is in dispute. The question was, and is, is it easier to change the NFU so that it is no longer sh!te, or to start a new union ?

Click to expand...

Hawkes said:

I like the idea of an alternative union that is just that, not trying to be all things to all men. A union should stand up for it's members in the political arena, offer them support on occasion when they need it and give them access to professional advice. Discount on a new pickup I would place at the bottom of the list just above RT!
Using unpaid staff is never a great motivator, anyone who runs a society or club will know that a few hardy souls basically do everything and trying to get members to volunteer for anything is an uphill struggle. I guess if a new union was to be started on Clive's lines, the programme he put a link up to is interesting but quite vague, it could get started on a no money basis, but I am sure for it to prosper long term, paid posts would be inevitable. As we know "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others" society soon arranges itself in a hierarchy however high aspirations we may start off with.
It is tempting to think we could all sit at our keyboards, engage with a new exciting computer programme and change the world from our desks, but I fear that actually we need to be a bit more old school. Rock up to a few NFU meetings in numbers and cause havoc. I don't get the feeling that many young farmers are on here, why aren't they kicking off and fighting for their future? What is the average age of contributors on this thread I wonder?

Click to expand...

Hawkes said:

I like the idea of an alternative union that is just that, not trying to be all things to all men. A union should stand up for it's members in the political arena, offer them support on occasion when they need it and give them access to professional advice. Discount on a new pickup I would place at the bottom of the list just above RT!
Using unpaid staff is never a great motivator, anyone who runs a society or club will know that a few hardy souls basically do everything and trying to get members to volunteer for anything is an uphill struggle. I guess if a new union was to be started on Clive's lines, the programme he put a link up to is interesting but quite vague, it could get started on a no money basis, but I am sure for it to prosper long term, paid posts would be inevitable. As we know "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others" society soon arranges itself in a hierarchy however high aspirations we may start off with.
It is tempting to think we could all sit at our keyboards, engage with a new exciting computer programme and change the world from our desks, but I fear that actually we need to be a bit more old school. Rock up to a few NFU meetings in numbers and cause havoc. I don't get the feeling that many young farmers are on here, why aren't they kicking off and fighting for their future? What is the average age of contributors on this thread I wonder?

Click to expand...

ImLost said:

I am highly likely to fall into your category of "young farmer" and I'm not "kicking off" as you put it, because I believe there is a more pragmatic, sustainable and more than likely mature way to approach this.
Some of what I plan to do, when I can find the time and if someone doesn't beat me to it, is this;
- take the time to pick up the phone and speak to those in positions of authority/government etc. My day job is (supposed to be ) picking up the phone to awkward people who don't want to buy(into) anything, I don't see it as being any different. Through doing this my aim would be to put pressure on from "the other side" instead of the greenies/lefties/big business getting there way the entire time. Start pushing some laws/rules etc. that protect the industry from outsiders fiddling with what they don't know enough about/give farmers more of a voice when it comes to governance
- Have already started research into how changes could be made in the way UK slaughterhouses are regulated etc. and how we could return to more smaller slaughterhouses/start more on farm slaughter. This would add pressure and competition to the few bigger companies out there that run everything, which can only be a good thing. It could also encourage farm gate retailing of meat, adding pressure to supermarkets.
- This point is pretty unclear, but hopefully someone will understand roughly what I am getting at. I would like to find a way in which standards are upheld, in a more practical way than the unnecessary red tape people are getting from the likes of RT. It is unlikely that this will be able to be done without some kind of regulatory body, but we need to move away from the useless and depressing mountains of paperwork and needless rubbish farmers are fed

UK farmers, certainly for the foreseeable future, can't manage without supermarkets and as a consequence have to bow (to a degree) the wants/needs of the big slaughterhouse companies and the likes of RT. Seeing as largely they won't work WITH us, we have to find a way to change prices which they can't do anything about and have to come to us grovelling.

From what I can tell what farmers largely want is better prices. The way I see it happening, put very simply, is through more competition. Increase the demand, reduce the supply, but increase the quality. We have seen this working to some degree in the meat sector over the last few months. Less meat being imported, so a greater reliance on domestic supply, coupled with a greater domestic demand for various reasons, which leads to more demand and more head of cattle/sheep being slaughtered, and not just that, but being slaughtered at a lighter weight (2kg less meat per 10,000 sheep is 20 tons of meat that needs to be sourced, which leads to greater demand, which leads to higher prices, which leads to more farmers sending their sheep in ASAP, maybe at lighter weights because they don't want to miss the boat on higher prices, which completes the circle) Then add a greater global need/demand with a lack of supply and you have a nice steady rise in prices like we are seeing at present. You could also add more potential breeding stock slaughtered to take advantage of higher prices, which has another two-fold effect (less breeding stock = increased breeding stock prices + less offspring produced/lack of supply).

If we can work towards more independent slaughterhouses, for example, like there used to be, and improvements to regulations making it easier for farmers to market their own meat, it all adds to the competition the big boys at the top of the food chain receive, and we should see a swing in our favour.

I want to add a disclaimer before I drop this post on here. I have by no means covered even a small part of what could/needs to be done and I haven't even touched on the obstacles that will need to be overcome. However, it does not mean I am not aware of them by any means. What I wanted to highlight in this post was why I don't think unions are necessary, and in fact a hindrance. If we protest, throw our toys out of the pram as an industry, and get them to act on our behalf, at best we are going to get some better prices, but only for a time until it's felt we have calmed down or they find another way to screw us. We need to take a hard look at how we can create demand/value instead of churning out commodities, and we need to look at how we can reduce supply whilst simultaneously increasing quality/value which well help increase prices further, which should mean we remain just as profitable while producing less and with lower inputs.

Click to expand...

FarmyStu said:

Yep, it's called price fixing. Totally illegal.

Click to expand...

bobk said:

How's about spreading sh!t all over the RT HQ ? feel better if nowt else and it will hit the news channels .

Click to expand...

ImLost said:

I am highly likely to fall into your category of "young farmer" and I'm not "kicking off" as you put it, because I believe there is a more pragmatic, sustainable and more than likely mature way to approach this.
Some of what I plan to do, when I can find the time and if someone doesn't beat me to it, is this;
- take the time to pick up the phone and speak to those in positions of authority/government etc. My day job is (supposed to be ) picking up the phone to awkward people who don't want to buy(into) anything, I don't see it as being any different. Through doing this my aim would be to put pressure on from "the other side" instead of the greenies/lefties/big business getting there way the entire time. Start pushing some laws/rules etc. that protect the industry from outsiders fiddling with what they don't know enough about/give farmers more of a voice when it comes to governance
- Have already started research into how changes could be made in the way UK slaughterhouses are regulated etc. and how we could return to more smaller slaughterhouses/start more on farm slaughter. This would add pressure and competition to the few bigger companies out there that run everything, which can only be a good thing. It could also encourage farm gate retailing of meat, adding pressure to supermarkets.
- This point is pretty unclear, but hopefully someone will understand roughly what I am getting at. I would like to find a way in which standards are upheld, in a more practical way than the unnecessary red tape people are getting from the likes of RT. It is unlikely that this will be able to be done without some kind of regulatory body, but we need to move away from the useless and depressing mountains of paperwork and needless rubbish farmers are fed

UK farmers, certainly for the foreseeable future, can't manage without supermarkets and as a consequence have to bow (to a degree) the wants/needs of the big slaughterhouse companies and the likes of RT. Seeing as largely they won't work WITH us, we have to find a way to change prices which they can't do anything about and have to come to us grovelling.

From what I can tell what farmers largely want is better prices. The way I see it happening, put very simply, is through more competition. Increase the demand, reduce the supply, but increase the quality. We have seen this working to some degree in the meat sector over the last few months. Less meat being imported, so a greater reliance on domestic supply, coupled with a greater domestic demand for various reasons, which leads to more demand and more head of cattle/sheep being slaughtered, and not just that, but being slaughtered at a lighter weight (2kg less meat per 10,000 sheep is 20 tons of meat that needs to be sourced, which leads to greater demand, which leads to higher prices, which leads to more farmers sending their sheep in ASAP, maybe at lighter weights because they don't want to miss the boat on higher prices, which completes the circle) Then add a greater global need/demand with a lack of supply and you have a nice steady rise in prices like we are seeing at present. You could also add more potential breeding stock slaughtered to take advantage of higher prices, which has another two-fold effect (less breeding stock = increased breeding stock prices + less offspring produced/lack of supply).

If we can work towards more independent slaughterhouses, for example, like there used to be, and improvements to regulations making it easier for farmers to market their own meat, it all adds to the competition the big boys at the top of the food chain receive, and we should see a swing in our favour.

I want to add a disclaimer before I drop this post on here. I have by no means covered even a small part of what could/needs to be done and I haven't even touched on the obstacles that will need to be overcome. However, it does not mean I am not aware of them by any means. What I wanted to highlight in this post was why I don't think unions are necessary, and in fact a hindrance. If we protest, throw our toys out of the pram as an industry, and get them to act on our behalf, at best we are going to get some better prices, but only for a time until it's felt we have calmed down or they find another way to screw us. We need to take a hard look at how we can create demand/value instead of churning out commodities, and we need to look at how we can reduce supply whilst simultaneously increasing quality/value which well help increase prices further, which should mean we remain just as profitable while producing less and with lower inputs.

Click to expand...

SJG said:

The NFU is neither one thing nor the other. If it's a union - looking after its members then great - but it shouldn't be seen to be the body that promotes, markets and assures us (Len McLuskey, Arthur Scargill et al marketeers?!). Does any other union in the world do those things? We need to persuade them to cough up their badly used marketing budget and then we need to step up and create a PR/marketing/promotion vehicle for the industry

Click to expand...