Minette Batters NFU president

[Mwf]

This thread seems to be going around in circles and I have no desire to get into some sort of bare knuckle fight here.


Would it not be a more positive discussion to debate how YOU feel agriculture should be represented? Are you concerned about future regulation, succession, tax liabilities, retirement, production?
Does the industry require leadership and guidance, or are you all content to represent yourselves? How do you do that, outside of in here?
If you asked 100 farmers what their gripe with agriculture is , would it be the NFU? I doubt it. You might find there are 40 different answers and not all of them can be pushed under one letterbox.

Personally, I think there is a need for an organisation to represent and there is already one, I also feel there is a need for us to provide assurance to consumers (our customers). I do think it needs doing perhaps much 'better' but that is my view.

Shouting at the driver from the back of the bus is easy. Not so easy perhaps if you get into the driving seat and find it's a single track road...

As an industry we should be looking further up the road, we can then decide which way the bus goes.
Strategy, short,medium and long term are essential in agriculture. Fighting battles with the postman is not great.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Would be interesting to know how many have looked at this thread and what proportion care enough either way to vote.

I'm not a member, but I am a farmer so I voted out because I think her approach is not good for the industry and I don't think it will ever be while the NFU gets "sponsorship" from its non farming corporate members.

the other 1% is death threats

I hope that is a joke?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I also feel there is a need for us to provide assurance to consumers (our customers)

How do you feel about paying for that privilege when imports neither pay nor provide any assurance?

 

[Mwf]

How do you feel about paying for that privilege when imports neither pay nor provide any assurance?

As level a playing field as possible is obviously required. Beyond that, added value for the services provided. It's not rocket science.

 

[SilliamWhale]

As level a playing field as possible is obviously required. Beyond that, added value for the services provided. It's not rocket science.

What does "as level a playing field as possible" mean?

We know we can't control other countries standards but we can do a heck of a lot not to try and hamstring our own country. The assurance needed for grain is "yes it's within contract spec, and it is produced according to the laws on this country". End of, everything else is made up

 

[ski]

Personally, I think there is a need for an organisation to represent and there is already one, I also feel there is a need for us to provide assurance to consumers (our customers). I do think it needs doing perhaps much 'better' but that is my view.

But if we are selling to abattoirs, grain merchants even supermarkets then they are not our customers. This is the great trick, do the suppliers to car manufactures supply assurance to the car buyers or is it the manufacturers, do the brick makers provide assurance to the house buyer or is it the house builder, and when there is a problem with the house or car does the customer go to the person who sold it to them or berate the manufacturer of the dodgy part or window or whatever. The manufacturer has contracts with his suppliers which lay out the contractual obligations between both parties. I am not intrinsically against quality control (which is assurance) but I am very against the current system as it does provide assurance but also works directly against farmers interests.

 

[Mwf]

What does "as level a playing field as possible" mean?

We know we can't control other countries standards but we can do a heck of a lot not to try and hamstring our own country. The assurance needed for grain is "yes it's within contract spec, and it is produced according to the laws on this country". End of, everything else is made up

It means exactly what is says. Other countries also have certain levels of 'assurance' and that is not to be forgotten. The 'level playing field' refers to aligning our base leves to the requirement to match others, or add value.

 

[Mwf]

But if we are selling to abattoirs, grain merchants even supermarkets then they are not our customers. This is the great trick, do the suppliers to car manufactures supply assurance to the car buyers or is it the manufacturers, do the brick makers provide assurance to the house buyer or is it the house builder, and when there is a problem with the house or car does the customer go to the person who sold it to them or berate the manufacturer of the dodgy part or window or whatever. The manufacturer has contracts with his suppliers which lay out the contractual obligations between both parties. I am not intrinsically against quality control (which is assurance) but I am very against the current system as it does provide assurance but also works directly against farmers interests.

The building industry is not a great comparison. Their level of scrutiny would far outweigh ours. Iso numbers, building regs, insurances and liabilities.

Do we grow produce to sell confidently, or do we grow it for our own amusement?

As per my initial post, I do not wish to bare knuckle fight, just looking for solutions.

 

[Drillman]

I’m an NFu member,

I voted.

 

[Vader]

It means exactly what is says. Other countries also have certain levels of 'assurance' and that is not to be forgotten. The 'level playing field' refers to aligning our base leves to the requirement to match others, or add value.

Yes but the nfu/BRC/aic/etc won't allow that level playing field.
They got RT set up to screw us over.
There is no other way to solve it all apart from all nfu members quit on behalf of all the other farmers who are not in the nfu but get screwed over by the nfu's deeds..

 

[Vader]

I’m an NFu member,

I voted.

I take it you like red tractor and net zero then if your a nfu member?

 

[Mwf]

Yes but the nfu/BRC/aic/etc won't allow that level playing field.
They got RT set up to screw us over.
There is no other way to solve it all apart from all nfu members quit on behalf of all the other farmers who are not in the nfu but get screwed over by the nfu's deeds..

A sentence beginning with 'Yes, but....' reminds me of Vicky Pollard.

There is certainly a piece of work to do to resolve current issues. I absolutely believe it can be done.

 

[Drillman]

I take it you like red tractor and net zero then if your a nfu member?

No I don’t. I I think they got it very wrong. I’m a big critic of red tractor as reading any of my ramblings will confirm.

 

[Vader]

A sentence beginning with 'Yes, but....' reminds me of Vicky Pollard.

There is certainly a piece of work to do to resolve current issues. I absolutely believe it can be done.

How when the people at the top don't want to change it?

 

[willyorkshire]

A sentence beginning with 'Yes, but....' reminds me of Vicky Pollard.

There is certainly a piece of work to do to resolve current issues. I absolutely believe it can be done.

Think recognise that head and glasses. Martin?

 

[Vader]

No I don’t. I I think they got it very wrong. I’m a big critic of red tractor as reading any of my ramblings will confirm.

So why are you a member of the nfu when they created and support red tractor?
Nothing wil change while the nfu members keep paying their subs.
Nfu top brass can say what they doing is right as we have X many farmers behind us ..

 

[Mwf]

How when the people at the top don't want to change it?

That depends on what happens in February perhaps.

 

[Mwf]

Think recognise that head and glasses. Martin?

They do give me away.

 

[ski]

The building industry is not a great comparison. Their level of scrutiny would far outweigh ours. Iso numbers, building regs, insurances and liabilities.

Do we grow produce to sell confidently, or do we grow it for our own amusement?

As per my initial post, I do not wish to bare knuckle fight, just looking for solutions.

Definitely not a good comparison, complaints about big house builders are the stuff of tabloids, even with NHBC, local authority, etc. What matters more is the ethics of those concerned, there are always ways around assurance if someone wants to.

 

[Clive]

This thread seems to be going around in circles and I have no desire to get into some sort of bare knuckle fight here.


Would it not be a more positive discussion to debate how YOU feel agriculture should be represented? Are you concerned about future regulation, succession, tax liabilities, retirement, production?
Does the industry require leadership and guidance, or are you all content to represent yourselves? How do you do that, outside of in here?
If you asked 100 farmers what their gripe with agriculture is , would it be the NFU? I doubt it. You might find there are 40 different answers and not all of them can be pushed under one letterbox.

Personally, I think there is a need for an organisation to represent and there is already one, I also feel there is a need for us to provide assurance to consumers (our customers). I do think it needs doing perhaps much 'better' but that is my view.

Shouting at the driver from the back of the bus is easy. Not so easy perhaps if you get into the driving seat and find it's a single track road...

As an industry we should be looking further up the road, we can then decide which way the bus goes.
Strategy, short,medium and long term are essential in agriculture. Fighting battles with the postman is not great.

i think we need a “NFU” but it’s clearly time it modernised and reformed its democracy and engaged WAY better with far more farmers. - its needs to use technology/ social media to its advantage not to its detriment as it has been doing

i would love to re join but i would need some VERY good reasons to want to do so