Farming subsidies should be scrapped.

[llamedos]

says Chatham House report.

The Chatham House report said a market-oriented model, such as the one in New Zealand, would lower food prices and increase productivity.

It warned many smaller farms would probably fold but said the scale of job losses could be "exaggerated".

The UK government said it would continue to support farmers.

The report predicts livestock farming, which makes up most of the Scottish sector, would be particularly vulnerable in this scenario with rural upland communities "likely to suffer the most commercially".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41837936

 

[llamedos]

https://reader.chathamhouse.org/imp...u-and-global-agricultural-reform-next-decade#

 

[GTB]

Upland livestock units are struggling as it is. Without subs most hill farms couldn't survive. Although we'd all like a fair price for our produce and no sub it's never going to work in reality.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Interested to know how they think removing subs would lower food prices?

Sacrificing ag at any brexit trade deals maybe, but purely from removing subs?

 

[Hilly]

Upland livestock units are struggling as it is. Without subs most hill farms couldn't survive. Although we'd all like a fair price for our produce and no sub it's never going to work in reality.

Up to us to make it work one way or tother.

 

[llamedos]

Upland livestock units are struggling as it is. Without subs most hill farms couldn't survive. Although we'd all like a fair price for our produce and no sub it's never going to work in reality.

There is an illustration within the report on possibly redundancies in farming(my words there)

"Jobs that are lost may move to other sectors, as normally happens in a healthy economy. By way of comparison, the number of manufacturing redundancies in a single year is normally equivalent to over one-fifth of the entire agricultural workforce (over the last decade, redundancies in the manufacturing sector averaged over 100,000 per year – the total agricultural workforce is just over 421,000)."

"The cost of agricultural subsidies is so high that any savings from their reduction could comfortably fund transition support. Theoretically, even one year of the UK’s current direct agricultural subsidies, £2.7 billion,31 is more than enough to pay the median UK annual full-time earnings of £28,00032 to over one-fifth of the agricultural workforce. These funds could provide substantial support and retraining to those affected. Of course, these examples are purely illustrative, and do not represent an assessment of the actual impact nor the appropriate policy instrument. Moreover, there could be ongoing socio-economic impacts on parts of rural communities affected that would need to be considered, and would create particular political challenges."

 

[farmerm]

Leave us to an unsubsidised market orentated model and we will end up with massive price volatility. They are right, there will be low food prices but then there will also be very high food prices. For investment in productivity we need profitability.

 

[llamedos]

Transition impacts of reform

"A move to a genuinely market-oriented model would result in imports displacing UK products, and the removal of all forms of subsidies would cause some farming operations to fold. While the resulting lower prices would benefit consumers, importing businesses and the economy overall, it would also mean unviable agricultural businesses closing, being taken over or having to reinvent themselves. The livestock sector in particular is vulnerable in this regard, with rural communities, especially upland areas, likely to suffer the most commercially."

 

[Hilly]

There is an illustration within the report on possibly redundancies in farming(my words there)

"Jobs that are lost may move to other sectors, as normally happens in a healthy economy. By way of comparison, the number of manufacturing redundancies in a single year is normally equivalent to over one-fifth of the entire agricultural workforce (over the last decade, redundancies in the manufacturing sector averaged over 100,000 per year – the total agricultural workforce is just over 421,000)."

"The cost of agricultural subsidies is so high that any savings from their reduction could comfortably fund transition support. Theoretically, even one year of the UK’s current direct agricultural subsidies, £2.7 billion,31 is more than enough to pay the median UK annual full-time earnings of £28,00032 to over one-fifth of the agricultural workforce. These funds could provide substantial support and retraining to those affected. Of course, these examples are purely illustrative, and do not represent an assessment of the actual impact nor the appropriate policy instrument. Moreover, there could be ongoing socio-economic impacts on parts of rural communities affected that would need to be considered, and would create particular political challenges."

Farm worker s have left the industry in droves over the last 20 year so nowt new there, 3billion subs farmers get dosent even equate to beer money for the government ask the useless barstweards how much money they have printed last few year and pumped into the system ? they call it quantitative easing, i call it bad management.

 

[joe soapy]

With a population approaching 70 million on a small island , tinkering with the secure local food supply might not be the best decision

 

[Hilly]

With a population approaching 70 million on a small island , tinkering with the secure local food supply might not be the best decision

The 3 billion that it takes to keep things the way they are is peanuts for our government, its like you or i sticking a fiver in the tin for a poppy.

 

[PSQ]

Interested to know how they think removing subs would lower food prices?

+1, it would have completely the opposite effect.

And the unintended consequences?:
- massive impact on cost of living for those on low incomes
- stoke the flames of wage inflation issues / strikes
- balance of payments, remember them?
- environmental issues,
- collapse of upland infrastructure
-
-
-
etc

 

[Hilly]

+1, it would have completely the opposite effect.

And the unintended consequences?:
- massive impact on cost of living for those on low incomes
- stoke the flames of wage inflation issues / strikes
- balance of payments, remember them?
- environmental issues,
- collapse of upland infrastructure
+
+
+

I agree, but why is it allways the uplands that everyone thinks will be down the drian first ? my money is on arable farms down the shitter before hill men, hill men are survivors and dont need machines or private schools or ski holls or rangrovers etc etc etc what they have never had they will never miss.

 

[KMA]

feckin eejits, no subs = no farmers in much of Europe, no farmers less food so 'market oriented' policy dictates higher prices, haven't these morons ever heard the marketeers' mantra 'supply and demand' prices are about as low as they can be right now. That's before the loss of jobs in the support industries, the abandonment of large parts of the countryside, the appearance of hundreds of ghost villages and the acceleration of the move of the rural population to large towns and cities with their lack of housing and infrastructure to cope with population they already have.

 

[PSQ]

I agree, but why is it allways the uplands that everyone thinks will be down the drian first ? my money is on arable farms down the shitter before hill men, hill men are survivors and dont need machines or private schools or ski holls or rangrovers etc etc etc what they have never had they will never miss.

Perhaps my naivety: the proportion of tenants in upland areas.
Remove the subs and the landlord and tenant will have to decide who gets the lions share of SFA.
If the landlords and the banks don't show some 'good willI', then depending on circumstances it could be somewhere between a 'settling of accounts' and a bloodbath.

 

[Breckland Boy]

Some of us would sink, some would swim.
Cheap imports would flood in initially but the currency would weaken making our own produce more competitive. Many consumers won't wish to buy chlorinated chicken or hormone beef fed with GM grain.

 

[DrDunc]

How will removing subsidies make food cheaper?

Unless, is the plan to make so many UK farms bankrupt that the country then has to rely heavily upon imports from countries with favorable exchange rates, and "favorable" welfare and production standards?

 

[fudge]

Er wouldn't other subsidised industries, such as those in europe and the usa, just gear up to replace UK ag? I must be missing something.

 

[Bald Rick]

With a population approaching 70 million on a small island , tinkering with the secure local food supply might not be the best decision

Ah but you heard Chris Grayling's (Transport secretary - unless he too has been done for sexual harassment) answer:

"Produce More, Import More"

The Government don't really give a stuff about UK agriculture so long as they can do deals with other countries to keep food cheap.

 

[grimmy]

Why does everyone seem to think lower food prices are a good thing. At some point theres got to be a floor before its unworkable to grow anything in this country.

The real problem is people would rather have a bigger tv and sky hd then pay a decent price for quality produce.

If subs go some farms will fold some will continue big and little.
We are only small and the loss of our sub will hurt. But our kit and farm is paid for and we will be able to continue with some major changes to our ways