A bold and ambitious vision

[Walterp]

John Cherrington once acidly observed that the two greatest obstacles to farming progress are the NFU, and the Government of the day.

This week's publication of the Union's recommendation for a UK-specific agriculture policy confirms that assessment. Self-described as "a bold and ambitious vision", it amounts to anything but - a plea for no reduction in direct payments, and a continuation of enviro schemes and productivity grants.

How can a plan be bold, or ambitious, or even 'a vision', if it merely describes the status quo?

How about "A timid and unimaginative re-hash of existing policies" - at least it's a more honest description.

A better approach?

Around the time the UK joined the EEC we had decided, in the 1975 White Paper 'Food From Our Own Resources', to take out an insurance policy on the national food supply - we would pay our farmers a bit more than the world price, in return for a stable and safe food supply. A simple message, easily-understood, and widely-accepted by the taxpaying public.

I know it mirrors the CAP, but that's because both were - and remain - sensible policies in an unsettled world.

Junk the management-speak, keep it simple, win the argument.

 

[Pond digger]

Yes, why not.

 

[wasted years]

The NFU can hardly argue for the direction of travel can they, namely ditch direct payments and put all the money into enviro schemes?
By arguing for direct payments to continue they are to some extent being radical, because they know the intention is to stop them.

 

[DrWazzock]

John Cherrington once acidly observed that the two greatest obstacles to farming progress are the NFU, and the Government of the day.

This week's publication of the Union's recommendation for a UK-specific agriculture policy confirms that assessment. Self-described as "a bold and ambitious vision", it amounts to anything but - a plea for no reduction in direct payments, and a continuation of enviro schemes and productivity grants.

How can a plan be bold, or ambitious, or even 'a vision', if it merely describes the status quo?

How about "A timid and unimaginative re-hash of existing policies" - at least it's a more honest description.

A better approach?

Around the time the UK joined the EEC we had decided, in the 1975 White Paper 'Food From Our Own Resources', to take out an insurance policy on the national food supply - we would pay our farmers a bit more than the world price, in return for a stable and safe food supply. A simple message, easily-understood, and widely-accepted by the taxpaying public.

I know it mirrors the CAP, but that's because both were - and remain - sensible policies in an unsettled world.

Junk the management-speak, keep it simple, win the argument.

Such a policy would be anything but simple. If DEFRA cannot work out out how much to pay me as a flat rate direct area payment on my area that has remained static for 50 years, how are they going to work out the "bit more" to be paid on a vast array of different produce that varies in quantity, quality and market value from year to year and how are they going to deliver that payment to the farmer? Through the merchant, through levies, how exactly? Will we return to the days when I got £15 for a mediocre lamb at the market if the ministry grader approved it and then got a cheque for £15 from the government?

Grain is sold on world markets. Paying our own farmers a bit more would run counter to WTO agreements which is why area payments and enviro schemes were decoupled from production a few years ago.

Just let us get on with the job and keep your politics and grand social projects out of trade and industry including agriculture. If you want to help us, tax us less so that we can reinvest more profit into useful things like sheds and drainage, health plans and useful technology of our own choosing. Don't take our hard earned profit from us, then decide who and what deserves your wretched charity.

 

[DrWazzock]

Enviro schemes equals money for old rope. They can be had for nothing. Just don't farm it for a year or two. Not pretty, but nature isn't.

 

[Suffolk Serf]

Such a policy would be anything but simple. If DEFRA cannot work out out how much to pay me as a flat rate direct area payment on my area that has remained static for 50 years, how are they going to work out the "bit more" to be paid on a vast array of different produce that varies in quantity, quality and market value from year to year and how are they going to deliver that payment to the farmer? Through the merchant, through levies, how exactly? Will we return to the days when I got £15 for a mediocre lamb at the market if the ministry grader approved it and then got a cheque for £15 from the government?

Grain is sold on world markets. Paying our own farmers a bit more would run counter to WTO agreements which is why area payments and enviro schemes were decoupled from production a few years ago.

Just let us get on with the job and keep your politics and grand social projects out of trade and industry including agriculture. If you want to help us, tax us less so that we can reinvest more profit into useful things like sheds and drainage, health plans and useful technology of our own choosing. Don't take our hard earned profit from us, then decide who and what deserves your wretched charity.

Far too sensible. Therefore it won't happen.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Please define "world price" given the fact that in most parts of the world commodity food prices are cooked either directly or indirectly?

 

[endeavour]

WP and pond digger Why not because a policy to pay we farmers slightly more would require active import controls a policy politicians of every calling do not embrace and generally unacceptable to other industries with no such protection.

 

[Pond digger]

Such a policy would be anything but simple. If DEFRA cannot work out out how much to pay me as a flat rate direct area payment on my area that has remained static for 50 years, how are they going to work out the "bit more" to be paid on a vast array of different produce that varies in quantity, quality and market value from year to year and how are they going to deliver that payment to the farmer? Through the merchant, through levies, how exactly? Will we return to the days when I got £15 for a mediocre lamb at the market if the ministry grader approved it and then got a cheque for £15 from the government?

Grain is sold on world markets. Paying our own farmers a bit more would run counter to WTO agreements which is why area payments and enviro schemes were decoupled from production a few years ago.

Just let us get on with the job and keep your politics and grand social projects out of trade and industry including agriculture. If you want to help us, tax us less so that we can reinvest more profit into useful things like sheds and drainage, health plans and useful technology of our own choosing. Don't take our hard earned profit from us, then decide who and what deserves your wretched charity.

Tax allowance on new sheds and infrastructure would be good.

 

[DrWazzock]

And I never thought I'd say this, but let's make Red Tractor work as a selling point and quality mark worth a premium over imported food products. Let's salvage it like a rusty old implement from the nettlebeds of Brexit, polish it up, tune it up and make it deliver.

 

[onthehoof]

Such a policy would be anything but simple. If DEFRA cannot work out out how much to pay me as a flat rate direct area payment on my area that has remained static for 50 years, how are they going to work out the "bit more" to be paid on a vast array of different produce that varies in quantity, quality and market value from year to year and how are they going to deliver that payment to the farmer? Through the merchant, through levies, how exactly? Will we return to the days when I got £15 for a mediocre lamb at the market if the ministry grader approved it and then got a cheque for £15 from the government?

Grain is sold on world markets. Paying our own farmers a bit more would run counter to WTO agreements which is why area payments and enviro schemes were decoupled from production a few years ago.

Just let us get on with the job and keep your politics and grand social projects out of trade and industry including agriculture. If you want to help us, tax us less so that we can reinvest more profit into useful things like sheds and drainage, health plans and useful technology of our own choosing. Don't take our hard earned profit from us, then decide who and what deserves your wretched charity.

Couldn’t agree more with this post.
The more I read the NFU farmer and grower magazine, the more I’m convinced we should quit our membership.

 

[Tim W]

Here's the link to the report https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/100873
Not read and absorbed all of it but it does seem like ''maintaining the status quo'' and continuing to reward land ownership

 

[Deutzdx3]

I find the NFU do nothing but leach off the farming community and give back very little, they say they lobby for the farmer but the majority of their lobbying is to keep them Selfs in a dominant position. Back when my grandfather farmed they were probably good.

 

[Walterp]

Ideology should have no place in discussing a nation's food supplies, so along with the management-speak observers should also junk their free-market views, because they have no place in such a debate - nearly every country on the planet seeks to protect and encourage their domestic agriculture, regardless of doctrinal attitudes.

The better starting-point is therefore 'how should the UK best protect and encourage its home agriculture?'

[If that isn't the starting-point, then look away now, because it won't have a pretty outcome].

Tax relief? The greatest of these isn't some tiny Income tax relief on a new shed (long-since abolished, with no appreciable effect on agricultural production - new sheds have continued to go up) but APR on Inheritance Tax.

An argument based on the industry's national importance may help retain APR, but an argument based on 'productivity' has no legs. Probably counter-productive, because 'you can borrow some money to pay the tax, and pay it off because you are now more productive...'

Hatred of administration? Tough. Welcome to the modern world.

The greatest lesson of the 20th Century, for the UK, had nothing to do with its internecine wars - it was the indifference and hostility of its governing classes to the fostering and development of its industries that removed the 'Great' from 'Britain'.

There's no need to abet them.

 

[ollie989898]

I don't really know much about the NFU, have never paid them for anything, or their insurance but I am aware of the scorn and ill feeling they attract from many here. That said, looking in from an outsiders perspective, the NFU would appear to serve too many masters and as such it must be impossible to devise policy or advise government on behalf of all members as all their various interests are rarely going to be aligned in one direction?

 

[Rossymons]

We're NFU members. We've used their services for insurance, tenancy matters and legal aid plus other bits and bobs. I view them as a service provider rather than as a body that represents me. I can't remember the last time I had a worthwhile conversation with anyone who does the "lobbying" part and I wouldnt say they represented me at all.

 

[ollie989898]

Ideology should have no place in discussing a nation's food supplies, so along with the management-speak observers should also junk their free-market views, because they have no place in such a debate - nearly every country on the planet seeks to protect and encourage their domestic agriculture, regardless of doctrinal attitudes.

The better starting-point is therefore 'how should the UK best protect and encourage its home agriculture?'

[If that isn't the starting-point, then look away now, because it won't have a pretty outcome].

Tax relief? The greatest of these isn't some tiny Income tax relief on a new shed (long-since abolished, with no appreciable effect on agricultural production - new sheds have continued to go up) but APR on Inheritance Tax.

An argument based on the industry's national importance may help retain APR, but an argument based on 'productivity' has no legs. Probably counter-productive, because 'you can borrow some money to pay the tax, and pay it off because you are now more productive...'

Hatred of administration? Tough. Welcome to the modern world.

The greatest lesson of the 20th Century, for the UK, had nothing to do with its internecine wars - it was the indifference and hostility of its governing classes to the fostering and development of its industries that removed the 'Great' from 'Britain'.

There's no need to abet them.

You are dreaming an impossible dream I am afraid. Some countries cannot possibly grow all their own food in sufficient quality or quantity and so are reliant on international trade.

Even the UK is reliant on world trade, if not for food (the majority of imported product is low value feed grains or raw materials derived thereof) then for energy like natural gas, or because we trade heavily in financial services and thus obtain an income from global trade.

Put simply, if every country did nothing but grow their own food, legions of farmers worldwide would have to leave the business because of vast oversupply in domestic markets. Britain is only 70 million strong and a portion of those have no intention of buying UK only product because they consume foods which are of foreign origin anyway- for example pasta and rice.

Industry standard benchmarking occurs and shows that the costs of production in many agricultural sectors varies hugely. Why then should there be any policy at national level to protect farmers?

The car, coal and ship builders were afforded no such mercy, I certainly would never rely on this government nor any other to care one ounce about our hides. They will do whatever they deem as politically expedient at the time.

 

[Walterp]

I don't really know much about the NFU, have never paid them for anything, or their insurance but I am aware of the scorn and ill feeling they attract from many here. That said, looking in from an outsiders perspective, the NFU would appear to serve too many masters and as such it must be impossible to devise policy or advise government on behalf of all members as all their various interests are rarely going to be aligned in one direction?

That's a fair view.

It's exacerbated, I suggest, by two trends:

1. recent officers are self-serving - interested in lucrative posts (not 'work') after their term of office - which neuters any practical opposition to contemporary political will. I'm sorry, but there it is.

Even the FG has now called for Meurig to speak up. (He should - he is renowned for being passionate about UK farming interests, and he is disinterested in financial advancement; if he feels that he is not the man for that job, which to be fair was not there when he was elected, he should delegate to Mr Guy Smith, by far the most able of the officers around him).

2. the body is divided ideologically, with the more pragmatic officers holding differing policy views from the more politically-orientated element.

The outcome is paralysis.

 

[Walterp]

The car, coal and ship builders were afforded no such mercy, I certainly would never rely on this government nor any other to care one ounce about our hides. They will do whatever they deem as politically expedient at the time.

Although I have sympathy with your reasons, I disagree with your conclusions.

Ask yourself why was 'Food From Our Own Resources' a cross-Party consensus?

 

[ollie989898]

That's a fair view.

It's exacerbated, I suggest, by two trends:

1. recent officers are self-serving - interested in lucrative posts (not 'work') after their term of office - which neuters any practical opposition to contemporary political will. I'm sorry, but there it is.

2. the body is divided ideologically, with the more pragmatic officers holding differing policy views from the more politically-orientated element.

The outcome is paralysis.

I think you have struck on two of the reasons much of our civil service is now stuck fast and in the position it is in. As you say sectors of it are now driven purely by the instinct of self-preservation, and anyone who does not conform with the rest is forced to stay silent for fear of losing their job or disrupting their path up the ladder.