Guy Smith @ meeting with guth today

[Hilly]

Shop around, and you can get far better quotes on insurance than the NFU.

I did and was with TOWERGATE for a good while, when I shopped around again NFU were best, think I will shop around again this year because I don't want to be a member.

 

[The Ruminant]

Right now no one, which in my opinion is no different to what we have in the NFU - I don't think they represent uk ag well, they represent a minority of farmers, badly, they certainly don't represent my view on many subjects as is well documented, in many cases they represent the complete opposte of my view (GM for example)

i thought my last post was pretty clear - i.e. my answer is as you anticipated

I anticipated you avoiding the question. Now you've answered it clearly, which I appreciate.[emoji106]

I agree with you on the GM issue - I think we have a real opportunity to create a niche GM-free island. However I also anticipate that there will be many farmers who feel the direct opposite and the day can't come soon enough when they have access to the latest technology. I also agree that, without a debate, the NFU won't know what the majority think.

Herein lies two problems:

The first is that the minority will always feel the NFU aren't representing them - the NFU covers so many sectors within our industry that it can never please all the people all the time. What's your solution to this? (Is there a solution even?)

The second problem is where does the NFU draw the line? GM is an emotive issue but also a very important issue and it would be sensible to have an open debate because it affects us all. But how about a slightly less important issue? Say, bTB? Life-threateningly important to many but if no significance to equal numbers of farmers. Should this be debated too? And if the answer's yes, then what about the next issue which is slightly below bTB in significance. Should that be debated too? And the one after that? And the one after that?

Where does the NFU draw the line?

The sensible answer has already been given by someone earlier in this thread (and apologies, I can't remember who). They said "I vote for someone cleverer than me in the hope that they make better decisions than me". That's how politics works. It's how the NFU works. It's the only sensible approach when your fighting lots of battles in lots of fronts.

If you don't like the stance the leaders are taking, and you (like me) aren't political enough to get involved with the NFU personally, then nominate a candidate. Support them, lobby for them, get them into power. You have the medium with TFF to do this. You have the power to canvass opinions to find a true "representative of the people". He or she could be a shoe-in.

 

[Clive]

I anticipated you avoiding the question. Now you've answered it clearly, which I appreciate.[emoji106]

I agree with you on the GM issue - I think we have a real opportunity to create a niche GM-free island. However I also anticipate that there will be many farmers who feel the direct opposite and the day can't come soon enough when they have access to the latest technology. I also agree that, without a debate, the NFU won't know what the majority think.

Herein lies two problems:

The first is that the minority will always feel the NFU aren't representing them - the NFU covers so many sectors within our industry that it can never please all the people all the time. What's your solution to this? (Is there a solution even?)

The second problem is where does the NFU draw the line? GM is an emotive issue but also a very important issue and it would be sensible to have an open debate because it affects us all. But how about a slightly less important issue? Say, bTB? Life-threateningly important to many but if no significance to equal numbers of farmers. Should this be debated too? And if the answer's yes, then what about the next issue which is slightly below bTB in significance. Should that be debated too? And the one after that? And the one after that?

Where does the NFU draw the line?

The sensible answer has already been given by someone earlier in this thread (and apologies, I can't remember who). They said "I vote for someone cleverer than me in the hope that they make better decisions than me". That's how politics works. It's how the NFU works. It's the only sensible approach when your fighting lots of battles in lots of fronts.

If you don't like the stance the leaders are taking, and you (like me) aren't political enough to get involved with the NFU personally, then nominate a candidate. Support them, lobby for them, get them into power. You have the medium with TFF to do this. You have the power to canvass opinions to find a true "representative of the people". He or she could be a shoe-in.

its easy IMO on big issues like GM - simply let us (each member individually) vote on it like they did with WLA ..............only this time take notice of the vote results and base policy on it

thats really all I'm asking for, surely not too much ?

to ignore that makes me feel that they think they know better than their members and a situation like that can not be allowed to continue or at least I cant continue to support it

 

[JP1]

Is that a flying pig i see,Your opinions and agenda form every aspect of this forum.

I don't agree with that at all

Mainly because I beg to differ frequently with Clive, Jake - and the rest of the team !

 

[4course]

its easy IMO on big issues like GM - simply let us (each member individually) vote on it like they did with WLA ..............only this time take notice of the vote results and base policy on it

thats really all I'm asking for, surely not too much ?

to ignore that makes me feel that they think they know better than their members and a situation like that can not be allowed to continue or at least I cant continue to support it

if I had the right to vote on gm I may reconsider my membership but they took members opinions out of decision making years ago and filled the committees with vested interests and I cant see that changing but we can live in hope

 

[Clive]

if I had the right to vote on gm I may reconsider my membership but they took members opinions out of decision making years ago and filled the committees with vested interests and I cant see that changing but we can live in hope

exactly how I feel, give me a vote on these BIG issues and base policy on the result rather than ignore it (like WLA) and they would have my membership fee again

ideally OMOV as well but I'm sure that would be a step too far, as said before turkeys don't bite for christmas !

 

[Qman]

@Clive, if we had OMOV who would you vote for?

 

[Clive]

@Clive, if we had OMOV who would you vote for?

not a clue ! I would want to hear the views of all the candidates nominated on various issues and vote accordingly

let just say I doubt Guy would get my vote any more !

 

[4course]

but at least he is or was prepared to discuss/listen /meet the rest dont as far as I can see

 

[buffalo_soldier]

Trouble with this omov thing is wont everyone just revert to type.
I struggle to see myself voting for an arable leader over a livestock one.

 

[Clive]

Trouble with this omov thing is wont everyone just revert to type.
I struggle to see myself voting for an arable leader over a livestock one.

Maybe but as long as the majority are represented thats democracy at work

 

[Clive]

I could see me voting for someone like Adam Quinney quite possibly despite him being livestock depending on his view re some arable issues maybe not a given that arable will vote for arable and livestock for livestock - he seems like a decent chap that has always answered my question with a straight answer on twiter and has acted on issues I have made him aware of in the past, never met him and don't know his views on GM etc, I would want to consider all the facts before anyone got my vote livestock or arable

he's no longer an office holder I believe though is he ? maybe he got a little disillusioned with it as well off the record !

 

[Qman]

not a clue ! I would want to hear the views of all the candidates nominated on various issues and vote accordingly

let just say I doubt Guy would get my vote any more !

So now we see that if we had OMOV most NFU members wouldn't have a clue who to vote for. This is why the present system is best, the people who see what goes on vote for the leader. We vote for the ones who vote for the leader, I know my delegates Nick Adams and John Hall and they certainly know my opinions on who the leader should be and that is Minette Batters this time.

 

[Clive]

So now we see that if we had OMOV most NFU members wouldn't have a clue who to vote for. This is why the present system is best, the people who see what goes on vote for the leader. We vote for the ones who vote for the leader, I know my delegates Nick Adams and John Hall and they certainly know my opinions on who the leader should be and that is Minette Batters this time.

rubbish - we would have a clue as if we got OMOV we would then be presented with a list of nominated candidates whose manifestos we could consider and vote upon accordingly ..........individually

the only reason we don't know who we would vote for right now is because we have never been offered that choice so potentials have not told us where they stand on various issues

 

[Qman]

I could see me voting for someone like Adam Quinney quite possibly despite him being livestock depending on his view re some arable issues maybe not a given that arable will vote for arable and livestock for livestock - he seems like a decent chap that has always answered my question with a straight answer on twiter and has acted on issues I have made him aware of in the past, never met him and don't know his views on GM etc, I would want to consider all the facts before anyone got my vote livestock or arable

he's no longer an office holder I believe though is he ? maybe he got a little disillusioned with it as well off the record !

Clive for God's sake, Quinney got voted off. They didn't think he was good enough, time for him to go to the retirement home AHDB.

 

[Clive]

Clive for God's sake, Quinney got voted off. They didn't think he was good enough, time for him to go to the retirement home AHDB.

"THEY didn't think" ............. you see the problem here ? its dictatorial, members might have felt differently had they been given the choice / chance to vote

why should anyone assume the right to decide who members want to lead them ?

 

[gone up the hill]

So now we see that if we had OMOV most NFU members wouldn't have a clue who to vote for. This is why the present system is best, the people who see what goes on vote for the leader. We vote for the ones who vote for the leader, I know my delegates Nick Adams and John Hall and they certainly know my opinions on who the leader should be and that is Minette Batters this time.

I think MB has some serious questions to answer about her TB statement the other week before she puts her name down for the top job!!

Ref asking Clive who to vote for, how can he or anyone else answer that question at this moment in time?? as firstly they need to put their name forward and then you would have to go to a husting meeting and see them talk/ question them on their views as well as judge them on how they work on a daily basis!!

Council should have the power to whittle it down to say 3/ 5 people and then it should be upto the members via OMOV on who they vote for!!

 

[gone up the hill]

Clive for God's sake, Quinney got voted off. They didn't think he was good enough, time for him to go to the retirement home AHDB.

TBF Quinney was very popular with members but not very popular with certain members on the council, hence why he was voted out and which was a very big shock at the time!!

 

[drumeldry]

I don't agree with that at all

Mainly because I beg to differ frequently with Clive, Jake - and the rest of the team !

You can beg to differ as much as you want,But the facts are its a one horse pony show and Clive runs the show.So for the umpteenth time Clive if you don't like the NFU step up to the plate and do summit about it instead of crying on here.

 

[Qman]

rubbish - we would have a clue as if we got OMOV we would then be presented with a list of nominated candidates whose manifestos we could consider and vote upon accordingly ..........individually

the only reason we don't know who we would vote for right now is because we have never been offered that choice so potentials have not told us where they stand on various issues

We would end up with Arthur Scargill or David Handley. I used to want OMOV but now I see it would end up in a disaster, most members couldn't care less who leads them and wouldn't vote. Then we might get a right idiot who would ruin the whole lot.

The present system isn't perfect but like "first past the post" it is the best we've got. Whoever is the president wouldn't make too much difference as the government don't want to listen to making food more expensive.