Blood sucking ahdb
- Thread starter White rabbit
- Start date
White rabbit
Member
I think a lot of levy payers are thankful I made it my business, a lot of growers will be several thousands of pounds better off, do you know Austin 7 I am beginning to think you are being economical with the truth and are secretly a ahdb supporter.
Austin7
Member
Actually there were three options in the vote. Yes, No and Abstain. The vote was on the current Statutory Levy, it was not on a continuation of a body. The Minister has indicated that the Legislation is to be amended so it is important that Potato Growers are given the option to continue with a body under the amended legislation to be voted on again with all the other sectors in March 2022. I have congratulated White Rabbit on bringing this issue to a head, something I had failed to do by moaning at them for the last ten years. Nick Saphir's proposal did not go far enough , I told him that I and many others could not support him without radical change. Thanks to White Rabbit that has been achieved. Although we do not know what had been proposed behind the scenes, the Minister may well have already made his mind up that change was required. The earlier Defra Survey had given him a similar message. Now the future is solely in the hands of Potato Growers, no more squealing. We need a grown up informed debate. A subscription service is the way forward and the Minister should see that the free riders also contribute something. The funds available post Brexit should not all go on the birds and the bees.
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
I’m not sure you can have it both ways, either it’s voluntary subscription or statutory levy, statutory levy has been voted against.
Nowt stopping those who want to funding something voluntarily, but surely stopping information leaking out to those who do not wish to pay is their problem and quite possibly in their interests.
Austin7
Member
What follows is in no way a defence of AHDB. However, I believe that collective action can provide growers with increased productivity, enable environmentally sustainable production and a more equitable share of the return in the market place whilst at the same time also supporting the wider population with the public goods they require. The essence of collective action is that growers have to work together for this common cause. Each and every individual's contribution will make a grower better off, there will be a positive return on the cost. However in a purely voluntary situation the grower would always be better off by leaving it all to other growers to shoulder the burden. Where we stand today is that the collective action has fallen away because too many growers have individually decided to not pay the price. Therefore, the whole gain has been lost not just for all growers but also the value of the public goods for the wider population. However, there is another player, not just the Yes and No Growers. The question is will Government stand aside and let the public good wither. Almost certainly that will not happen. At the moment, they say that they will not retain the current Statutory Levy, but as the Minister has hinted there are many and various ways it could be reincarnated. Government also has the option of providing incentives and disincentives to those who don’t voluntarily participate. The principle of collective action has been flung into a grave by the AHDB, that does not make it an unworthy principle.
White rabbit
Member
The earlier defra survey had given him a similar message , come on Austin 7 you are clearly more intelligent than that 0.45 response half of which were organisations receiving money from ahdb what the hell sort of survey is that, can I remind you we got mid 60% in both enough said.
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
What a pile of arrogant self serving nonsense. You obviously think that producers should have 'collective action' imposed on them regardless of their views. How democratic of you. The whole point of the vote was to abolish the 'collective action', that is precisely what everyone voted for, indeed what was on the ballot paper. Not for the AHDB to continue operating in their area in exactly the same manner and for them to continue to be forced to pay for whatever the likes of you decide they want on pain of imprisonment. Your attitude is both condescending and dictatorial, and paints you in an extremely poor light.
Austin7
Member
Goweresque, thanks for your warm words. Once again I remind you I have spent nearly ten years criticising AHDB Potatoes, I have no time for those who have so failed the industry. There is no intended arrogance and no anti democratic intention in proposing that the industry retains the ability to act collectively. In my opinion the Potatoes sector should have an opportunity to vote again next year with the rest of AHDB. Clearly a consensus has to be found which is different to the one that has so obviously failed. I have said that should be based upon subscription and that the issue of free riders has to be addressed. There are a number of ways the Minister can cover this issue. If we fail to get support for a fundamentally reformed body in next year's ballot so be it. I believe I am allowed to hold this opinion without being abused. Lastly may I suggest that you do not know what growers had in mind when they voted for or against or indeed abstained in the ballot, the question we were asked was only on the "THE statutory potato levy" Given that you contest this fact I attach my unused ballot paper.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Austin7 how does one deal with 'free riders' in a subscription service?
May I take the three functions, as I see it, of AHDB Potatoes in turn:
1 Market information. Not sure it is still going but for years in the commercial sector 'Potato Call' was published weekly - think it used to be about £100 per annum. Well I used to get a free copy faxed to me weekly by a grower, who also faxed a copy to a few of his grower mates. So how does one stop this information going elsewhere, if it were to be a subscription only service. Would the subscription service be able to obtain information of any kind, let alone reliable from the non subscription growers?
2 Research R&D. Again some of the work part funded by levy money such as the Potato Blight genotyping survey work undertaken at James Hutton Institute is part of a larger European and Worldwide monitoring. As such the information is freely shared among researchers, chem manufacturers, growers etc. Other R&D which a subscription levy funded body might commission would also become available to others if a grower used an agronomist who then worked for non subscription growers as it is inevitable two things might happen; either the agronomist would utilise results without thinking about it (or at least not ring fence in their advice) or the non paying grower would quiz the agronomist for information. All makes for a difficult relationship. I can think of other conflicts. All I am sure can be resolved if such a model were to be implemented.
3 Market promotion - advertising campaigns like the recent baked potato campaign. And National Chip week. Such generic advertising - be interesting to see how many sign up to pay for it.
Interested in your thoughts as I suspect you have considered much of this in the past few years.
As an aside given your involvement with folk way up the hierachy than an oik like me do you have a view what government (the minister) considers should happen (funding / commissioning of work) to academic research organisations - for example James Hutton, Harper Adams etc. I am not sure of the extent of reliance on levy money for these institutes - do you have an idea.
Regards,
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
So you're just like the EU, people should be forced to vote again and again until they give the answer you want.
So your version of democracy works something on the lines of 'Well they only voted to abolish THIS statutory levy, so we'll just give them another one, just slightly different, and we can claim that wasn't covered by the No vote, and we get to continue as normal'? A vote to abolish 'the statutory levy' includes all future ones, absent a subsequent vote to introduce one. Thats what democracy means, the voters get what they voted for, not just what you want to give them.
Thats easy, you just just create another statutory levy, only you just call it a 'subscription service'. Everyone has to pay just like now, and it has the added advantage that the non-voluntary payers don't get a vote on whether it continues! Fat salaries and pensions all round, especially for the likes of @Austin7
Just what I thought,
that would be terrible were it to happen, talk about some being more equal than others
White rabbit
Member
collaboration in the horticultural industry would never work , the culture in this industry is stab your neighbour in the back , we have some growers who will go into the supermarket and look at your produce and if they think theirs is better will call the buyer and put in a complaint, sometimes they get friends and relatives to do the same, knowledge exchange, working together, forget it your fellow growers are your enemy.
What a sad state of affairs, you should be ashamed of yourselves
Austin7
Member
Heck Hindsight I can't cope with FOUR sensible questions. So If I may I will tackle on at a time.
First "free riders" I think you will find that most of the books on economic and game theory over the last two hundred a fifty years have addressed this issue. Rousseau in 1755 used the example of four men surrounding a deer when a rabbit ( perhaps white ? ) got up, forgetting the deer one man chased and caught the rabbit but the deer escaped. So extrapolating to 2021 the man who caught the white rabbit are the No voters their rabbit is the saved Levy. The other three men represent the Yes voters the abstainers and the wider public interest, they are left without the deer, in this case the benefits of collective action. We know from the Defra survey that there is only a minority support for a completely voluntary system. We also know that the Government has given itself wide powers in the Agriculture Act. The Minister has said that the cost of of a Statutory Levy is an issue he recognises. He also recognises that growers don't like writing cheques. So putting this all together we could end up with a hybrid system where everyone contributes in part and those who wish to can contribute more. Or of course we end up with nothing.
First "free riders" I think you will find that most of the books on economic and game theory over the last two hundred a fifty years have addressed this issue. Rousseau in 1755 used the example of four men surrounding a deer when a rabbit ( perhaps white ? ) got up, forgetting the deer one man chased and caught the rabbit but the deer escaped. So extrapolating to 2021 the man who caught the white rabbit are the No voters their rabbit is the saved Levy. The other three men represent the Yes voters the abstainers and the wider public interest, they are left without the deer, in this case the benefits of collective action. We know from the Defra survey that there is only a minority support for a completely voluntary system. We also know that the Government has given itself wide powers in the Agriculture Act. The Minister has said that the cost of of a Statutory Levy is an issue he recognises. He also recognises that growers don't like writing cheques. So putting this all together we could end up with a hybrid system where everyone contributes in part and those who wish to can contribute more. Or of course we end up with nothing.
Last edited:
- Location
- Hayling Island
I think we are better with nothing. Given you have spent the last ten years trying to change the ahdb with no luck. We must finish the job and bury the ahdb for good. The name alone is bad enough the British potato council or home Grown Cereals sound was much better. Sometime the name can determine how an organization behaves.
Austin7
Member
Other than your first sentence I agree. The Minister has said that the Labour 2008 legislation which bought in AHDB has not worked. He has his own Agriculture Act which allows him to do almost anything to support. farmers. I am surrounded by naysayers but there is an opportunity here if we are prepared to move on from AHDB as we know it.
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
That's disingenuous to the point of lying. The vote was 60/40 against. Ergo of the 4 men surrounding the deer over 2 of them decided the rabbit was of more value than the deer. The non voters are irrelevant, or at least they can be added to either side equally, you are assuming that they are effectively Yes voters as well, in that they want the deer too. When in reality they had a chance to vote and didn't so must accept the result whichever way it falls. And the public interest is irrelevant as well, unless the public is going to pony up some cash to fund the system.
White rabbit
Member
I agree spud but we are forced to tender every year , the less growers the more chance of getting the order, but it’s must be the same in all business, I was watching a programme on taxi drivers ,when they came across a Uber driver broken down or they had an accident do you think they jumped out to help or got a tow rope out of course not, they thought one less on the road I will get that fare ,I am counted as a allotment holder around these parts large packers see me as an irritation and would to see me disappear ( a bit like some of you on the forum).