Michael Gove speech @ OFC - Farming for the Next Generation

[Steevo]

It's hard to argue that a land owner needs any subs

trouble is how do you subsidise a farmer without the cash ending up in the landowners pocket as increased rent or rent equivalent ?

I think using the words “farmer” and “landowner” confuse the issue.

What is the purpose of the support?
Whichever parties provide that demanded should receive the support. That needn’t be split between owning/farming...both could tick the boxes depending on the purpose.

Farmers want it for production.
Nat trust etc want it for their purposes
The public all want something different.
So do governments.

If the car manufacturers could tick the boxes of improving the environment why shouldn’t they have it instead?!

If it’s about food, then it would go elsewhere.

Back to the original point...what is the purpose of the support? Only the government can decided....but they can’t make up their mind and stick to it as they pander to all parties at differing times depending on priorities at the time.

 

[Old Tip]

He said it's all going to be fine. Sunlit uplands, farms that run themselves with barely any human intervention, wild flower meadows galore and, to cap it all, George Eustace is looking at fairness in the supply chains.

All that's needed is for Gove to remain in power and in this post for the next 7 years and we're laughing....

Be surprised if he’s still in post in 7 months

 

[farmerm]

So status quo for a couple more years and then we kiss our payments goodbye.

 

[llamedos]

Have you got a secretary or did you type that long post ? I could never type that much, time wise or ability. Haha

Sorry to disappoint.
Just 4 keys were used for the whole.

 

[farmerm]

Ctr

Sorry to disappoint.
Just 4 keys were used for the whole.

ctrl c
ctrl v

 

[willy]

Have to say give came across well and there is need for updating a post war policy, also dr deiter helm also spoke sense and some of it sounded harsh, but you could not argue against much of it, he did say that there is no such thing as free trade deal and that product produced less well did need basically tariffs to keep high standeards meaningful and realistic.


Also @Paddington made it on the board in a slide with the what3words presentation.

All in all a very good open minded conference.

 

[willy]

And TFF was mentioned in the what three words presentation

 

[matthew]

I won’t hold my breath, by the time this great scheme is due to be implemented Gove and indeed the Tory government are likely to be long gone.

Gove said that subsidies would stay until the ‘next election’.
He also wants public access in exchange for the cash.

The latter is not compatible with .livestock farming. The former could come sooner than Gove expects.



.

 

[willy]

I would recommend people download dieter helms video tomorrow, can't really argue with the facts

 

[andybk]

Have you got a secretary or did you type that long post ? I could never type that much, time wise or ability. Haha

ctrl c / ctrl v lol

 

[Goweresque]

trouble is how do you subsidise a farmer without the cash ending up in the landowners pocket as increased rent or rent equivalent ?

You can no more stop a farming subsidy become a landowning subsidy than you can stop a housing subsidy being a property owning subsidy.

When activity A fundamentally requires the use of asset B, then much if not all of a subsidy for people doing A will end up with owners of B.

 

[Clive]

You can no more stop a farming subsidy become a landowning subsidy than you can stop a housing subsidy being a property owning subsidy.

When activity A fundamentally requires the use of asset B, then much if not all of a subsidy for people doing A will end up with owners of B.

I agree, its far from simple but surely possible somehow - capping is a step towards it I guess ?

 

[Two Tone]

Even taking on board all the comments made so far on this thread, I have to say that my opinion of Mr Gove has gone up very dramatically. Not only was it well written and well presented, it makes a lot of sense.

Although long, there is a lot covered. And I would suggest that we all read it twice.

Yes a lot of it will be difficult to implement and no doubt future consultations will change a few things. But I have to say that it is inescapable that if it can be implemented, we will be heading in the right direction. It is also nice that for the first time in a very long time, somebody has taken a very good hard look at what we have now and where we should be heading in the future.

On the whole, I like it and am not at all surprised that Mr Gove was genuinely applauded. IMO, he might well have found his niche and I really hope he gets the chance to make it happen.

No one can deny that the system we have now has many flaws and faults. Tinkering with a broken system is no good. What is needed is a bold and well thought out plan. This seems a good one.

Bring it on!

 

[Bossfarmer]

so to sum it up we will get subs until 2024 and most likely after that too?

 

[kamloops]

When you look at what the RSPB take in area payments you could easily save a lot of money by only paying subsidies to farming buisness... not just landowners. Then there would be no need for a cap!

The money is meant for agriculture and food security not the likes of the RSPB because they are simply landowners!

 

[gone up the hill]

Absolute disaster for UK farming if Gove's plans actually are put in place!

He is basically saying that UK farmers should give up producing food and instead be paid park keepers.

No point spending all this money on R+D/ things like driverless tractors etc unless farming is profitable in its own right in the first place as no farmer will be able to buy this technology!

And on one hand he is saying that farmers need to get more technical advanced yet on the other is telling us we should be cutting production by planting low input flower meadows and woodland, no logic to his comments and a policy not thought out properly!

Also he stated young farmers need more help to get into the industry, well by saying they will only be paying for things like woodland planting/ very low input flower meadows means that these schemes/ payments will put a floor in the rental price of land and thus rents wont drop from current levels and as most young farmers say that finding land/ high rents is a barrier to them getting into the industry so with what is being suggested young farmers still wont be able to get the crucial land they need to start off!

 

[bobk]

The only public access on my land will be when they buy a house on it .

 

[romneymarsh]

When you look at what the RSPB take in area payments you could easily save a lot of money by only paying subsidies to farming buisness... not just landowners. Then there would be no need for a cap!

The money is meant for agriculture and food security not the likes of the RSPB because they are simply landowners!

Agree with your sentiment but if the payments continue to be significant the likes of RSBP will very soon engineer some appropriate ‘business ‘ to qualify .
As stated above it’s very difficult to see how the two can be separated .

A landowning farmer should quite rightly have access to everything, an asset holding landowner but not farming, well there are a whole host of different scenarios. Perhaps some form of Ag. rent control would suffice but impossible and inappropriate even dangerous and would never be promoted by a Conservative Gov.

 

[Steevo]

When you look at what the RSPB take in area payments you could easily save a lot of money by only paying subsidies to farming buisness... not just landowners. Then there would be no need for a cap!

The money is meant for agriculture and food security not the likes of the RSPB because they are simply landowners!

Is the money meant for landowners? Heard this on the news a moment ago that payments are made to farmers based on how much they own.....what about tenants that claim? I agree it makes it to the landlord in the form of rent....but only because the tenant agreed to paid that higher rate of rent, and offset it with the BPS.

The purpose of the support is rather vague if you ask me.

Is it really for agriculture?
Food security?
Public goods?
Public access?

The wording is surely "good agricultural and environmental condition"...but that in itself is vague, especially when the greenies make out that agriculture isn't environmentally friendly, and what the National Trust/RSPB call "good environmental condition" isn't exactly (profitable!) agriculture friendly either.

 

[Steevo]

Absolute disaster for UK farming if Gove's plans actually are put in place!

He is basically saying that UK farmers should give up producing food and instead be paid park keepers.

No point spending all this money on R+D/ things like driverless tractors etc unless farming is profitable in its own right in the first place as no farmer will be able to buy this technology!

And on one hand he is saying that farmers need to get more technical advanced yet on the other is telling us we should be cutting production by planting low input flower meadows and woodland, no logic to his comments and a policy not thought out properly!

Also he stated young farmers need more help to get into the industry, well by saying they will only be paying for things like woodland planting/ very low input flower meadows means that these schemes/ payments will put a floor in the rental price of land and thus rents wont drop from current levels and as most young farmers say that finding land/ high rents is a barrier to them getting into the industry so with what is being suggested young farmers still wont be able to get the crucial land they need to start off!

Well put. The whole system is a bit of a contradiction.

No young farmers coming through.....but "park keeping" doesn't require farmers....so why are they complaining when their own policies are a creating the current situation.
Upping production is called for, but so is less environmental impact.....tell that to the lot building HS2, Crossrail, housing estates etc.