F**ck Farming

[Walterp]

Minette Batters suggests that the Environment Secretary should be called 'Environment and Food Secretary' to redress what some would see as the anti-farming bias of the English polity. As a policy suggestion, it is characteristically weak and self-serving.

Rather than play around with titles, why not grasp the reality? That if the Foreign Secretary can suggest that we 'f**ck business' as a policy response, then why would it be realistic to believe anything other than that the Environment Minister would be content to 'f**ck farming'?

For that is the evidence thus far, is it not?

The Welsh farmer who leads the Tories in the WAG is promptly removed this week because such views, either towards business or farming, are unacceptable vote-losers here. Yet across the border in England an anti-business and anti-farming attitude is a vote-winner.

Even among farmers.

Can anyone explain why this is?

 

[Hindsight]

The Welsh farmer who leads the Tories in the WAG is promptly removed this week because such views, either towards business or farming, are unacceptable vote-losers here. Yet across the border an anti-business and anti-farming attitude is a vote-winner.

Can anyone explain why this is?[/QUOTE]

Your making an assumption this is the case. On this forum there are many who favour Boris Johnson who uttered the phrase. The presumption in your assertion I that all English consider this a vote winner. I suspect that BJ's outburst is as much to do with his prospects within the Tory Party of getting the top post - methinks he is slipping down the ladder of potential replacements for Mrs May, as evidenced by the bookmakers and like a petulant child he is lashing out. Anyway the soap opera called UK parliament continues.

 

[Walterp]

That's a fair response.

I suggest that the outburst reveals a truth about the attitudes towards business (just as Mr Gove's recent proposals reveal his attitudes, I think) and what puzzles me is why no one really objects.

I would be furious, because he wouldn't be representing my interests.

But very few are.

 

[lloyd]

That's a fair response.

I suggest that the outburst reveals a truth about the attitudes towards business (just as Mr Gove's recent proposals reveal his attitudes, I think) and what puzzles me is why no one really objects.

I would be furious, because he wouldn't be representing my interests.

But very few are.

Who said no ones objecting?
Nissan are making no promises to this country until they know more information about the brexit deal .
You can't blame them with statements made by career politicians who've never held a proper job.

 

[unlacedgecko]

The best thing for farming as an industry would be the removal of all subsidies and IHT relief on Ag land.

However, this would be bad news for landowners. And it is landowners who hold the political power, which is why this will not happen.

Land owning and farming are two entirely separate issues. It appears to be a common mistake to confuse the two.

 

[Walterp]

The best thing for farming as an industry would be the removal of all subsidies and IHT relief on Ag land.

However, this would be bad news for landowners. And it is landowners who hold the political power, which is why this will not happen.

Land owning and farming are two entirely separate issues. It appears to be a common mistake to confuse the two.

This is the opposing view.

Its weaknesses are:

1. no one ever cites factual evidence that 'the best thing' for farming to remove its various supports. It's a preference, based on a vested interest - just as the .contrary view is a preference: it's 'the best thing' for those advancing it.

2. the differential between owning and farming doesn't advance the point either way.

3. there is no evidence that landowners hold any substantial political power in a modern State. It's a prejudice, not a fact.

My point is that the proper test isn't one set by a vested interest (in either direction) but what is in the national interest.

No one ever talks about that, I wonder why? Is it too complicated? Or merely too inconvenient?

Can it really be in the national interest to weaken its business or its farming interests?

It is hard to avoid concluding that these politicians have abandoned the test of the national interest in favour of their own ideological preferences. That seems, to me, a disaster in the making - but everyone else seems cool with it. At least in England - similar sentiments are not acceptable elsewhere, but no one fancies proffering an explanation why that might be. (I might advance the concept of radical English nationalism, but then I'd receive tiresome abuse for telling the truth).

It's a fair question (but, again, one no one ever asks) where applying a test of what these politicians prefer - rather than what might be best for the country - might lead?

Four guesses:

A. the domestic political climate becomes febrile, with a swing to the Left. This may be permanent, due to demographic changes in England.

B. policy might then make the differential between owning and farming farmland rather more relevant, as ownership would be penalised both through fiscal measures and thru' confiscatory CPO procedures and LVT. So farmers might be supported in farming land, but discouraged from acquiring or inheriting it.

C. both Left and Right now worship at the altar of the NHS; domestic agriculture must, perforce, then be neglected by either ideology.

D.when funds become constrained (as a natural consequence of putting preference before interest) then taxation, and nationalisation, of farmland will become, as it did in the 1970's, a hot topic once more.

 

[bobk]

The best thing for farming as an industry would be the removal of all subsidies and IHT relief on Ag land.

However, this would be bad news for landowners. And it is landowners who hold the political power, which is why this will not happen.

Land owning and farming are two entirely separate issues. It appears to be a common mistake to confuse the two.

Says someone who has neither .

 

[ollie989898]

If you are relying on politicians for your daily bread you are already 90 percent screwed I'm afraid.

I don't think farming will be destroyed by the removal of subsidies or Brexit, On the contrary, I think the game will be completely reinvigorated as people shift their systems toward making a profit, which should have been the real point anyway.

 

[unlacedgecko]

This is the opposing view.

Its weaknesses are:

1. no one ever cites factual evidence that 'the best thing' for farming to remove its various supports. It's a preference, based on a vested interest - just as the .contrary view is a preference.

What is the point of an agricultural industry? It's my belief its purpose is to produce food and create wealth. Looking to NZ, both these metrics rose sharply after the removal of subsidies.

2. the differential between owning and farming doesn't advance the point either way.

The current subsidy regime benefits landowners, not farmers. It's an important distinction.

3. there is no evidence that landowners hold any substantial political power in a modern State. It's a prejudice, not a fact.

There are 600 members of the House of Lords. And 650 MPs in the Commons. There are 92 heritary peers who own large estates. Excluding any MPs who own land, that means that between both houses, 7.5% of members own land. What percentage of the voting public own land?

And this is of course ignoring the historical background, whereby ownership of land was a prerequisite to vote.

My point is that the proper test isn't one set by a vested interest (in either direction) but what is in the national interest.

No one ever talks about that, I wonder why?

Can it really be in the national interest to weaken its business or its farming interests?

It is hard to avoid concluding that these politicians have abandoned the test of the national interest in favour of their own ideological preferences.

It's a fair question (but, again, one no one ever asks) where applying the test of what they'd prefer - rather than what might be best for the country - might lead?

Perhaps you might like to describe this mythical creature, a test of what's best for the country?

 

[Walterp]

Lots of preferences there, many based more on prejudice than on fact I'm afraid.

Just taking the NZ reference: agriculture there was planned to contract, not expand, as it was regarded as a 'sunset' industry (as part of a wider industrial strategy). The sheep job did, indeed, contract.

It would thus be very easy to conclude - on the available evidence - that a similar consequence would be seen in the UK.

Going straight onto your, much fairer, point about the national interest - it's hotly disputed. DEFRA suggest it lies in looking after the environment, but not farmers. WAG say it's about looking after farmers because they are important for cultural reasons. Other views are available.

I'd say the national interest lies in stability.

That requires the status quo to be defended - but a febrile atmosphere means that very few people are inclined to rush to its defence. I'm a big fan of Tony Blair, who is the one of the few people persevering with the warning that abandoning stability carries the natural consequence of instability.

He is telling an obvious truth. It is an irony of history that such a politically-toxic figure is one of the few accurate commentators about our political choices.

 

[joe soapy]

Ten.

Land owning and farming are two entirely separate issues. It appears to be a common mistake to confuse the two.

if it was properly seperated there would be very little food grown

 

[unlacedgecko]

I'd say the national interest lies in stability.

That requires the status quo to be defended.

Interesting.

Previously you've suggested that the IHT relief enjoyed by agriculture should be removed, in the name of progressive taxation. Have you now changed your mind?

 

[Flat 10]

I'm a big fan of Tony Blair.

And on that note I won't bother reading anymore of your posts.........

 

[unlacedgecko]

Says someone who has neither .

Not yet

 

[texas pete]

Just taking the NZ reference: agriculture there was planned to contract, not expand, as it was regarded as a 'sunset' industry (as part of a wider industrial strategy). The sheep job did, indeed, contract.

It would thus be very easy to conclude - on the available evidence - that a similar consequence would be seen in the UK.

Sheep numbers, over time contracted. Productivity per head/ha however, did the opposite.

Maybe market led, not spoon fed.

 

[Henarar]

that's what a lady house is isn't it ?

 

[digger64]

if it was properly seperated there would be very little food grown

Why ?

 

[digger64]

That's a fair response.

I suggest that the outburst reveals a truth about the attitudes towards business (just as Mr Gove's recent proposals reveal his attitudes, I think) and what puzzles me is why no one really objects.

I would be furious, because he wouldn't be representing my interests.

But very few are.

What would your views be on liz trusses outburst?

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Says someone who has neither .

Or some one who gets neither....

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Lots of preferences there, many based more on prejudice than on fact I'm afraid.

Just taking the NZ reference: agriculture there was planned to contract, not expand, as it was regarded as a 'sunset' industry (as part of a wider industrial strategy). The sheep job did, indeed, contract.

It would thus be very easy to conclude - on the available evidence - that a similar consequence would be seen in the UK.

Going straight onto your, much fairer, point about the national interest - it's hotly disputed. DEFRA suggest it lies in looking after the environment, but not farmers. WAG say it's about looking after farmers because they are important for cultural reasons. Other views are available.

I'd say the national interest lies in stability.

That requires the status quo to be defended - but a febrile atmosphere means that very few people are inclined to rush to its defence. I'm a big fan of Tony Blair, who is the one of the few people persevering with the warning that abandoning stability carries the natural consequence of instability.

He is telling an obvious truth. It is an irony of history that such a politically-toxic figure is one of the few accurate commentators about our political choices.

Just remember those back in the 80's and 90's were fools and idiots who refered to agriculture as a "sunset" industry , guess what even now their still wrong.