Blood sucking ahdb

There is nowhere to hide, no possible light in this dark cloud. The management of AHDB Potatoes has shown itself as useless at defending their jobs as they have been serving Potato Growers. I am beyond angry, not with those who bought this vote, but all those who have through ignorance, arrogance and indolence have almost certainly lost us a structure that British Potato Growers, despite their current justified fury, actually need. Even in total defeat there is no spark or a realisation of what is required. As a past Chairman of NFU Potatoes I am horrified that the current incumbents have so lost contact with reality. We come to this place not by sudden accident but by years of neglect. Why have they been so asleep on the job? Tough action could have saved AHDB, digging it out of a grave will now require a political genius. We need leadership, the NFU and Nick Saphir must belatedly wake up. Whether anything can be salvaged that growers can back will depend on what is said and done over the next few weeks. No more grovelling excuses, action this day.

So we won’t now know what the big deal was going to be with Sutton Brudge?

Austin7 said:

We come to this place not by sudden accident but by years of neglect. Why have they been so asleep on the job?

Click to expand...

Because all bureaucratic organisations that have zero market forces applied to them tend towards self interest over time. Its just human nature. Organisations that are set up to help others often start out with great zeal and energy, because those who have had the drive to set them up control them initially and often good work is done. Then over time the founders retire, or leave, and those in control slowly become just there because its a job, not a 'calling'. The organisation eventually comes to operate entirely for its own benefit rather than that of the people it is ostensibly there to serve. (As an aside you can see exactly the same curve in the performance of the NHS).

I would argue that it takes about 2-3 generations for an organisation to become entirely self serving - by then any trace of the founding fathers ideals has been long eradicated and replaced by people who not only have no knowledge of them, but have never worked under anyone who had them either. The principles that caused the organisation to be created have been lost to its collective memory, and it is virtually impossible to bring them back, short of sacking everyone and starting again from scratch, or introducing the rigours of the marketplace - needing to get money in on commercial terms tends to concentrate the mind somewhat throughout an organisation.

Goweresque said:

Because all bureaucratic organisations that have zero market forces applied to them tend towards self interest over time. Its just human nature. Organisations that are set up to help others often start out with great zeal and energy, because those who have had the drive to set them up control them initially and often good work is done. Then over time the founders retire, or leave, and those in control slowly become just there because its a job, not a 'calling'. The organisation eventually comes to operate entirely for its own benefit rather than that of the people it is ostensibly there to serve. (As an aside you can see exactly the same curve in the performance of the NHS).

I would argue that it takes about 2-3 generations for an organisation to become entirely self serving - by then any trace of the founding fathers ideals has been long eradicated and replaced by people who not only have no knowledge of them, but have never worked under anyone who had them either. The principles that caused the organisation to be created have been lost to its collective memory, and it is virtually impossible to bring them back, short of sacking everyone and starting again from scratch, or introducing the rigours of the marketplace - needing to get money in on commercial terms tends to concentrate the mind somewhat throughout an organisation.

Click to expand...

Good post, for a moment I thought that you were talking about Mole Valley Farmers

Clive said:

great post

A book i read recently hypothesised that step 1 after any successful revolution should be execution of the revolutionary leaders as it was inevitable they would ultimately become as bad and corrupted by power as those they replaced !

so what is the solution ?

Click to expand...

I'm just riffing on the work of the great sage of bureaucracy, C. Northcote Parkinson, who wrote very humorously on the subject in the early post war period:


What is to be done? As I said there are two options, raze the current organisation to the ground and create a new one, which will serve purpose for a few decades, until the Iron Law of Bureaucracy kicks in again, or ensure that the discipline of the marketplace keeps the organisation somewhere close to working for the customer rather than itself. There is no alternative, you are fighting human nature here, which is ultimately selfish. If Road A is easier to travel than Road B, and there is no detriment to the driver C to choose the easy option, then they will tend to choose A, even if Person D is paying for the trip and they would prefer to go via Road B. Once you disconnect the link between who pays and who benefits then the producer will always tend to work for their own benefit first and foremost.

Imagine how farming would be if we got paid for our work regardless of output, and the 'customer' had nowhere else to go. Would we all really work as hard as we do now, or would we just say 'F*ck it, its 5pm on Friday, I'm going home for the weekend, the wheat can be harvested on Monday. Who cares if its due to rain all next week, they'll have to eat whatever I produce, and I get paid the same anyway'?

White rabbit said:

This is what happens austin 7 when you have a compulsory levy , people lose the drive to improve and cannot see any benefit in giving 100%, the whistle blower who we were talking to over the weekend said you growers have had your leg taken up for years, she said we were doing nothing that couldn’t have been done cheaper and better in the commercial world, in the case of horticulture adas Uk is indeed 10 times cheaper and 10 times better. The organisation along with the ahdb that should really hang it’s head in shame is the NFU , 75% of levy payers were Nfu members and they totally ignored in favour of their pals , the only regret the three of us have is we should have done it before, now the problem is getting rid of them ,they seem to be suffering from the same complaint as that chap in America they don’t know how to accept defeat, while I am here could I just thank my two friends flower grower Simon redden and veg and potato grower John Bratley, both have really given everything to this campaign, I picked up the baton in the first place but these two really ran with it.

Click to expand...

White Rabbit you misjudge me. I don't know how long you have been harassing AHDB but looking back through my email correspondence I don’t believe anyone at Stoneleigh can be unaware of my thoughts. In 2016, totally frustrated with Peter Kendall, I quoted Leo Amery in the 1940 Norway debate at him: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

I go back to the 70’s with Nick Saphir, when he took over in April I ended a long email listing my concerns with “Certainly if there was a vote today I would be for exit.” In my last contribution to this thread I wrote the management were guilty of “ignorance, arrogance and indolence.” However I was too easy on the NFU, “asleep on the job” was nowhere near harsh enough. The “Town Hall” meetings confirmed all my worst fears, the advertising demonstrated AHDB’s reckless extravagance. Nick Saphir completely misjudged the situation. Need I say more.

So far I am with you. My only quarrel with your position is that you believe the concept of a body with any power to raise a statutory levy will inevitably fail, therefore the legislation has to go. I, perhaps naively, believe there is a Plan B that could work and there are good people out there who would make it work. But as I also said earlier it will take a political genius to dig it out this grave.

Clive said:

great post

A book i read recently hypothesised that step 1 after any successful revolution should be execution of the revolutionary leaders as it was inevitable they would ultimately become as bad and corrupted by power as those they replaced !

so what is the solution ?

Click to expand...

Clive that’s a good question, how about a simple off the cuff answer, my Plan B. With no Levy the reality is that those who are prepared to voluntary come together to tackle the many issues which face potato growers will end up subsidising those who choose not to. Not surprisingly this is known as the “free rider” problem. My solution is that those who voluntarily subscribe will 100% call the tune and enjoy the direct benefits. To get over the “free rider” issue the Statutory Levy is set at a level to match fund the voluntary payments. All the funds would be under control of the voluntary contributors. Staff and Researchers would then depend entirely on successfully looking after those voluntary contributors and those who wish to “free load” would still have to contribute, but at a lower price and a lesser service.

Austin7 said:

My Plan B. With no Levy the reality is that those who are prepared to voluntary come together to tackle the many issues which face potato growers will end up subsidising those who choose not to. Not surprisingly this is known as the “free rider” problem. My solution is that those who voluntarily subscribe will 100% call the tune and enjoy the direct benefits. To get over the “free rider” issue the Statutory Levy is set at a level to match fund the voluntary payments. All the funds would be under control of the voluntary contributors. Staff and Researchers would then depend entirely on successfully looking after those voluntary contributors and those who wish to “free load” would still have to contribute, but at a lower price and a lesser service.

Click to expand...

That just makes the voluntary payers 'free riders' on the involuntary ones. They get all the benefit but only pay for half the cost. It would also effectively return the levy to where it is now, because if a significant minority of producers (say 20%) decided to be voluntary payers, their 20% would have to be matched by the 80%. Some of those would think 'If I'm going to have to pay anyway, I might as well be a 'voluntary' payer and at least get a say in how the money is spent and get something back too'

So the 20% of 'voluntary' payers would slowly rise year on year, each time lumping more payment onto the slowly reducing residue of non-voluntary payers. Once the % of voluntary payers reached 50% it would become a flood as effectively the last man standing out as a non-payer would have to match the contributions of all the others. Everyone would become a 'voluntary' payer because the alternative was even worse.

Your plan is a typical 'Sir Humphrey' solution, designed to stymie democratic change and over time recreate the status quo. There is absolutely no Free Rider issue with a subscription research service, all that is required is that research is no longer made public and instead is only available to the members. In this day and age of internet access the idea of a members only database of research is hardly science fiction. After all if the work being done is so useful and valuable to the producers they'll hardly want to be giving it away to their competitors will they?

Goweresque said:

That just makes the voluntary payers 'free riders' on the involuntary ones. They get all the benefit but only pay for half the cost. It would also effectively return the levy to where it is now, because if a significant minority of producers (say 20%) decided to be voluntary payers, their 20% would have to be matched by the 80%. Some of those would think 'If I'm going to have to pay anyway, I might as well be a 'voluntary' payer and at least get a say in how the money is spent and get something back too'

So the 20% of 'voluntary' payers would slowly rise year on year, each time lumping more payment onto the slowly reducing residue of non-voluntary payers. Once the % of voluntary payers reached 50% it would become a flood as effectively the last man standing out as a non-payer would have to match the contributions of all the others. Everyone would become a 'voluntary' payer because the alternative was even worse.

Your plan is a typical 'Sir Humphrey' solution, designed to stymie democratic change and over time recreate the status quo. There is absolutely no Free Rider issue with a subscription research service, all that is required is that research is no longer made public and instead is only available to the members. In this day and age of internet access the idea of a members only database of research is hardly science fiction. After all if the work being done is so useful and valuable to the producers they'll hardly want to be giving it away to their competitors will they?

Click to expand...

Goweresque, thanks for your post. It is simple maths, if as the ballot found only a third of growers wanted to voluntarily pay the levy then the other two thirds would have to cover that third, so half levy. If a new management gained a 50% voluntary payment, yes then you are right the status quo would be restored but only whilst they retained that confidence voluntarily given. The top limit of the levy would remain as is set in statute. I have been as critical of the current management as anybody, they should all be gone tomorrow. But I make no apology for trying to retain something I believe in. Hopefully we can all respect each other’s opinions.

Austin7 said:

It is simple maths, if as the ballot found only a third of growers wanted to voluntarily pay the levy then the other two thirds would have to cover that third, so half levy. If a new management gained a 50% voluntary payment, yes then you are right the status quo would be restored but only whilst they retained that confidence voluntarily given.

Click to expand...

Yes but it wouldn't be voluntary though would it? If you are forcing people to pay something when they want to pay nothing, but not giving them anything in return for the forced payment that will inevitably create a tendency for people to think 'I'm being forced to pay X and getting nothing, I might as well pay 2X 'voluntarily' and get something back'. Hence the % of 'voluntary' levy payers would tend to rise over time and eventually the status quo would be restored. Which of course is your intention.

Goweresque said:

Yes but it wouldn't be voluntary though would it? If you are forcing people to pay something when they want to pay nothing, but not giving them anything in return for the forced payment that will inevitably create a tendency for people to think 'I'm being forced to pay X and getting nothing, I might as well pay 2X 'voluntarily' and get something back'. Hence the % of 'voluntary' levy payers would tend to rise over time and eventually the status quo would be restored. Which of course is your intention.

Click to expand...

We are all agreed that the current management of AHDB potatoes are beyond useless. My solution they go and are replaced from within the industry but outside AHDB. Anybody currently working within AHDB is infected by a culture that must be eliminated. We all agree that Levy Payers must exert market forces on AHDB. My solution is the Hybrid system described previously. It is easily worked if a levy payer does not voluntarily pay on 1st December then instead of a 10% surcharge, he would in the example I gave of a 33% voluntary uptake, get a 50% discount. You are right he would have to pay, but in this example only £8.62 per acre. Effectively AHDB would be under an annual ballot, their performance would be monitored over time by the extent of the voluntary uptake. The organisation could not become entirely self serving if it wanted to survive. You ask why should the non believers be forced to pay anything, it is because in the end all will benefit from work focused to encourage voluntary subscription, you can’t lockdown knowledge for long. As an example, we are all struggling with storage post CIPC, solutions will be found and all will in the end benefit.

PS Anybody else noticed the mistake in the UK engage ballot result report?

Austin7 said:

We are all agreed that the current management of AHDB potatoes are beyond useless. My solution they go and are replaced from within the industry but outside AHDB. Anybody currently working within AHDB is infected by a culture that must be eliminated. We all agree that Levy Payers must exert market forces on AHDB. My solution is the Hybrid system described previously. It is easily worked if a levy payer does not voluntarily pay on 1st December then instead of a 10% surcharge, he would in the example I gave of a 33% voluntary uptake, get a 50% discount. You are right he would have to pay, but in this example only £8.62 per acre. Effectively AHDB would be under an annual ballot, their performance would be monitored over time by the extent of the voluntary uptake. The organisation could not become entirely self serving if it wanted to survive. You ask why should the non believers be forced to pay anything, it is because in the end all will benefit from work focused to encourage voluntary subscription, you can’t lockdown knowledge for long. As an example, we are all struggling with storage post CIPC, solutions will be found and all will in the end benefit.

PS Anybody else noticed the mistake in the UK engage ballot result report?

Click to expand...

So basically democracy means nothing to you because your side lost?