Is BPS actually good value for money?

[ollie989898]

I look on the support system from a totally different perspective from you . I see it as enabling me to produce food at a price that gives cheap food to the masses. To enable me to continue farming without support the price of my lambs and calves would need to double this would be the end of cheap food. Any saving to the tax payer on the tax they pay would be totally eliminated by the increase in their food bill. At the moment I see myself subsidising the tax payer because they are getting a great return on their investment for the hours that I put in,after coming through lambing and calving working 100 hour plus weeks I would say they are getting the best end of the deal.

Do you sincerely believe that?

There are plenty of farmers out there who will not be selling anything below the cost of production and some may even be making a handsome profit from their efforts.

Given the huge disconnect between the cost of farm produce at the gate and what that same stuff is eventually processed and retailed for I'm not convinced subsidies have any effect on food prices on the shop shelf.

 

[Henarar]

It makes sense to have some things nationalised though, like the national grid and the transport networks , we don't need the government sticking it's nose into every little aspect of our lives though IMO.

So subsidy is a good thing

 

[delilah]

Before the question in the OP is answered, it’s probably necessary to workout what the actual aim of BPS is...

Sure, but why discuss it ? BPS is history. What is the aim of ELMS, and will that be good value for money for the taxpayer ? Surely that is the discussion point ?

 

[Top Tip.]

Do you sincerely believe that?

There are plenty of farmers out there who will not be selling anything below the cost of production and some may even be making a handsome profit from their efforts.

Given the huge disconnect between the cost of farm produce at the gate and what that same stuff is eventually processed and retailed for I'm not convinced subsidies have any effect on food prices on the shop shelf.

It is beef and lamb I am involved in,this is a very short supply chain . The price of the raw material does have an effect on the end price.

 

[Tim W]

I wonder how many years it will take for these ''on no , I've lost my BPS , the end of the world is nigh'' type posts will continue?
I suspect there is a generation of landowners who are so used to getting money for nothing that they will never adjust mentally?

 

[Jimdog1]

I wonder how many years it will take for these ''on no , I've lost my BPS , the end of the world is nigh'' type posts will continue?
I suspect there is a generation of landowners who are so used to getting money for nothing that they will never adjust mentally?

I don't think the end of the world is nigh. I think we are facing too many changes at one time. Loss of BPS, tariff free trade, new environmental rules - dealing with one at a time will be hard for any business - dealing with all at once - who knows?

 

[DrWazzock]

In this county we have billionaire industrialists and aristocrats who have paid top price for land, outbidding all comers and some now hold upwards of 30,000 acres. Can people really say with any credibility at all, that these people need further support from the taxpayer? They bought the land in the full knowledge that the future of BPS was in doubt. They bought it for tax relief. If they are in financial difficulties going forward then they have only themselves to blame.
I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[Courier]

I understand your concerns, I think they are overly pessimistic, but a lot of farmers seem to think that the coming generations wont be able to overcome any problems. No offence, but It's slightly arrogant to think that nobody can do things better than you. That being said I appreciate that an abrupt end of support would see an immediate loss of a significant number of businesses. I'd rather more would see that the good times that subsidies have brought can't last forever and adapt to try and prioritise profitability whilst they can still afford to, an abrupt crash needn't be the case.

I believe that generations of subsidy is what has led to this situation of unprofitable businesses dominating the landscape, and also believe that there will always be a future for agriculture in the area, even in the unlikely event that all aid is withdrawn. However I suspect that money will be thrown at crofting in particular for the foreseeable future.

Would you just quit and sell up if all schemes and grants ended tomorrow?

And that is the attitude which this government is relying to prevail.
e.g. a 15 year drip, drip introduction of tariffs on Oz beef for one.
Time to adjust is a good thing but will result in creeping despondency on many farms particularly where there is rent or mortgage to pay and little realistic other opportunity.
Maybe trees ?
OK there will presumably be a grant for planting these trees but what income can be created from them for the next 50 years?

 

[delilah]

In this county we have billionaire industrialists and aristocrats who have paid top price for land, outbidding all comers and some now hold upwards of 30,000 acres. Can people really say with any credibility at all, that these people need further support from the taxpayer? They bought the land in the full knowledge that the future of BPS was in doubt. They bought it for tax relief. If they are in financial difficulties going forward then they have only themselves to blame.
I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

Which is precisely why the discussion needs to be about ELMS. Because, as things stand, those landowners will be hoovering - boom boom - the public money up.

 

[BrianV]

If the government want to remove subsidies & expect farmers to compete for trade with the rest of the world then there has to be repercussions, here in the Southwest the average field size is around 4 acres, the cost of upkeep of these hedges & small fields is considerable so if subsidies are to be removed then all legal restrictions on hedge removal has to go also.
You cannot say farmers must learn to compete but at the same time legally make some farmers far less competitive than others, growing crops in a 50 acre field is not comparable with a 4 acre field, if the public want to keep a pretty countryside then someone has to cover the cost!

 

[DrWazzock]

In the case of tenants on hill farms I’ve no doubt it isn’t an easy life. I’ve no doubt there is already hardship. But even then, further support will only go straight into the landlords pockets.
It needs a proper reckon up. A proper sort out so that people are actually rewarded for their hard work and opportunities are made available for the keen, rather than for those who are just in the right place at the right time and know how to play the system.
And for me the only way is removal is removal of agricultural subs and the payment instead of a guaranteed personal basic income so that even if businesses fail, nobody starves or ends up homeless. That way you allow commerce to find its natural level from artificial influences while safeguarding the welfare of individuals.
In this way rents and land prices would adjust back to more realistic levels and opportunity would be created for new entrants without having to stuff the mouths of the wealthy with gold, as Aneuran Bevan once said, or something like that.

 

[delilah]

payment instead of a guaranteed personal basic income

Steady on, that's Green Party talk that is.

 

[DrWazzock]

If the government want to remove subsidies & expect farmers to compete for trade with the rest of the world then there has to be repercussions, here in the Southwest the average field size is around 4 acres, the cost of upkeep of these hedges & small fields is considerable so if subsidies are to be removed then all legal restrictions on hedge removal has to go also.
You cannot say farmers must learn to compete but at the same time legally make some farmers far less competitive than others, growing crops in a 50 acre field is not comparable with a 4 acre field, if the public want to keep a pretty countryside then someone has to cover the cost!

I don’t actually have any objection to government funding farmers to maintain landscapes of special value if the farmer is happy to do that. There are however thousands of acres that have no aesthetic merit and would be better just continuing in straightforward efficient agriculture in my view. And surely the public would only want to so spend much on environmental schemes anyway? Yes I’d argue that some features are worth funding but here we will still be trimming our hedges without funding and we will just carry on. We took out the hedges that needed taking out at the time so they aren’t really a show stopper or a liability. We replanted them straight and out of the way.

 

[DrWazzock]

Steady on, that's Green Party talk that is.

Well let’s face it. It’s almost here already so why not make it official policy and be done with it, without having to go round and round to achieve it.

 

[Steevo]

If the government want to remove subsidies & expect farmers to compete for trade with the rest of the world then there has to be repercussions, here in the Southwest the average field size is around 4 acres, the cost of upkeep of these hedges & small fields is considerable so if subsidies are to be removed then all legal restrictions on hedge removal has to go also.
You cannot say farmers must learn to compete but at the same time legally make some farmers far less competitive than others, growing crops in a 50 acre field is not comparable with a 4 acre field, if the public want to keep a pretty countryside then someone has to cover the cost!

As @Brisel keeps reminding us the “free market” we are told exists and should be allowed to function isn’t a true concept.

Lots of rules and regs exist in this country that add to the cost of food production, that do not exist elsewhere. Some are production related but even those (e.g. banned spray chemicals) are really environmental based. Hedges as you say is that too. The market is not free to produce as it wishes across the board.

It is correct that these items are paid for separately if the country values them, however I think they want them free of charge by killing farming off. An unmanaged environment achieves much of what the extreme rewinding/enviro lobby want. I’m not sure the public as a whole are informed enough to care - they have their own things to think about that directly affect them.

 

[Top Tip.]

I wonder how many years it will take for these ''on no , I've lost my BPS , the end of the world is nigh'' type posts will continue?
I suspect there is a generation of landowners who are so used to getting money for nothing that they will never adjust mentally?

I strongly suspect that your situation and the situation of a hill farmer or crofter on the west coast of Scotland are worlds apart. The bps is not going to the landlord it is going to the farmer or crofter who is actually farming the land.

 

[BrianV]

If the government want to remove subsidies & expect farmers to compete for trade with the rest of the world then there has to be repercussions, here in the Southwest the average field size is around 4 acres, the cost of upkeep of these hedges & small fields is considerable so if subsidies are to be removed then all legal restrictions on hedge removal has to go also.
You cannot say farmers must learn to compete but at the same time legally make some farmers far less competitive than others, growing crops in a 50 acre field is not comparable with a 4 acre field, if the public want to keep a pretty countryside then someone has to cover the cost!

For instance we have around 150 fields, well over two hundred gates, goodness knows how many miles of hedges that we have fenced, I do know it takes around six weeks of solid hedge trimming to get around them, in a level playing field how does that compare with a large arable farm with a dozen fields often with no gates & very few real hedges.
If all subsidies are removed then farmers must also have the option to remove hedges, you can't have it both ways!

 

[Bill the Bass]

Down here there are very few small family farms left making a living purely from the farm. I don’t know who’d you support round here in order to retain a traditional way of life or culture. That all went years ago.
I wouldn’t begrudge continued support for hill farmers where livestock is the only option, dairy farming, sheep etc. It’s damned hard work and in my view an essential part of U.K. farming.
But here in the arable East I’d say we should be able to manage. Most are agro industrial concerns with huge wealth in other industries anyway.

I honestly don’t see a case for subsidising dairy farming when they can bid £200 plus an acre for additional land. If done right it’s very profitable, yes it’s hard work but the donkey work is largely done by a migrant work force or contractors round here and not the jolly old farmer.

Today’s average dairy unit is a far cry from the three or four farms in each village who walked a bony herd of 50 shorthorns across the village green to produce some locally sold gold top.

 

[digger64]

I can see that you are totally against any form of support which is fair enough but I don’t think you realise the implications of letting the free market rule . I think you make a proportion of your income from fencing,if the livestock go as they surely must without support there is then no need for fences . Your local Harbro store closes as it is the livestock supplies that ensures its existence. Your auction mart close due to lack of throughput . Your haulage contractor stops trading as he no longer has livestock or hay to transport. The list is endless of the effects of the removal of support. These effects are multiplied on the west coast of Scotland as the alternatives are limited.

this situation you describe is exactly what has happened in the east of england since area payments /SFP/BPS /HLS etc started

 

[DrWazzock]

So somebody buys a Croft / wet livestock farm / other non viable enterprise, keeps a pig and 5 chickens sheep turnips or whatever. Well that’s a hobby in my view. A lifestyle choice. If they can make it work good luck to them but why should others make good the commercial shortfall. The village blacksmiths closed in our village about 60 years ago along with a bunch of small holdings and allotments. Part of our heritage and culture. No sympathy.