Smaller farmers should receive greater subsidy per ha than larger farmers - discuss.

[Old McDonald]

after all the original idea of the CAP was to keep workers on farms to keep rural areas vibrant, in its present form it lines the pockets of mega land owners and discourages employment

Precisely. It worked until the rich politicians in the EU realised they could make a lot of extra money by buying farmland. From then on it has been slanted to make the big landowner more prosperous. Hopefully this will end under Brexit.

Salazar (look him up on Google) decided pre-war that the peasants should not be highly educated. That way they would remain in the country, feed themselves and quite a few more in addition, and the country would be prosperous. The cities would not become overcrowded with people out of work, a lot of money would be saved by not having to create more housing and all the other necessities of city life and so on.

The orginal CAP had similar ideals. Obviously there will always be the bright young peasant or road sweeper's son/daughter who will get out and prosper. Just survival of the fittest and most intelligent - always been that way since life began. Bring back grammar schools, and bright kids from any background will succeed. those who cannot achieve will pick vegetables in Essex, Cambridge and Suffolk for somebody with a big enough block of land to cover three counties.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Precisely. It worked until the rich politicians in the EU realised they could make a lot of extra money by buying farmland. From then on it has been slanted to make the big landowner more prosperous. Hopefully this will end under Brexit.

.

I am interested, name and shame? Quite a few had up for cronyism over the years but who are the closet farmers?

 

[Feldspar]

I am interested, name and shame? Quite a few had up for cronyism over the years but who are the closet farmers?

There's plenty of lords who farm / own land. See their mentions of it in this debate:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-07-21/debates/16072156000636/FarmingImpactOfBrexit

Not surprising I suppose.

Personally I think it's better to have some farmers (even if they are mainly just landowners) in the government rather than none at all.

 

[rob1]

Precisely. It worked until the rich politicians in the EU realised they could make a lot of extra money by buying farmland. From then on it has been slanted to make the big landowner more prosperous. Hopefully this will end under Brexit.

Salazar (look him up on Google) decided pre-war that the peasants should not be highly educated. That way they would remain in the country, feed themselves and quite a few more in addition, and the country would be prosperous. The cities would not become overcrowded with people out of work, a lot of money would be saved by not having to create more housing and all the other necessities of city life and so on.

The orginal CAP had similar ideals. Obviously there will always be the bright young peasant or road sweeper's son/daughter who will get out and prosper. Just survival of the fittest and most intelligent - always been that way since life began. Bring back grammar schools, and bright kids from any background will succeed. those who cannot achieve will pick vegetables in Essex, Cambridge and Suffolk for somebody with a big enough block of land to cover three counties.

The only problem is the young have been told they are all pop stars/celebs and managing directors in the making and wont do jobs they consider below them,lots would sooner sit on their arse playing games than get wet picking veg etc, there was a telly programme last year about foreign workers to young brits picking veg etc, hardly any brits turned up the second day as it was Too hard and menial

 

[neilo]

The current payment per acres works fine and is the fairest way

Says the man with 1000 acres who, despite predicting the end of the world after Brexit, is looking at buying an additional farm.....

 

[Henarar]

£10,000 0r 20 at most, would encourage employment so prob not cost the tax payer as much as the schemes do now, would help small farms and big farms would get a decent amount if they employed workers, after all the original idea of the CAP was to keep workers on farms to keep rural areas vibrant, in its present form it lines the pockets of mega land owners and discourages employment

the trouble with paying subs per worker as apposed to just so much for each farmer is that all it does is give the big farmers free workers for there ever expanding farms

 

[Bossfarmer]

why should farmers be rewarded for not expanding? this system of front loading the payments so that smaller farmers get more is stupid it encourages people to split their farms just to get the subs and doesn't reward progress

 

[FonterraFarmer]

why should farmers be rewarded for not expanding? this system of front loading the payments so that smaller farmers get more is stupid it encourages people to split their farms just to get the subs and doesn't reward progress

Or better still get rid of subsidies all together, none to big farmers, and none to small farmer, problem solved!!!​

 

[Bossfarmer]

that will benefit none of us so why suggest it

 

[Muck Spreader]

There's plenty of lords who farm / own land. See their mentions of it in this debate:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-07-21/debates/16072156000636/FarmingImpactOfBrexit

Not surprising I suppose.

Personally I think it's better to have some farmers (even if they are mainly just landowners) in the government rather than none at all.

It was the EU politicians that @Old McDonald reckons have invested in farmland and then manipulated the subsidy payments to their own ends I was particularly interested in. And I am sure there must be some, but is it widespread and does it amount to fraud. The gentry will generally have held their land for many centuries and beyond minor lobbying and sitting on EU committees will have had minimal influence on who gets what at an EU level. They have just benefited disproportionately like most large landowners.

 

[Old McDonald]

I am interested, name and shame? Quite a few had up for cronyism over the years but who are the closet farmers?

It is a few years since I checked it out, but a while after we moved here in 2003. I did not look at the UK, probably because TB was PM and not many (if any) of the Cabinet would be farmers. The worst example I came across, and I am not going to go the trouble of trying to check it again, was Holland. It was a press article that led me to do some some searching one wet day and some of the biggest claimants in Holland were apparently long term politicians who had bought land.

 

[Pasty]

that will benefit none of us so why suggest it

Yes it will and in ways you can't imagine. It will stop people doing unprofitable things on their land in places they shouldn't be doing it, propped up by the tax payer. It will turn many farms back into businesses again instead of dole claimants. That may require a change of ownership but that's life. It will also discourage this land grab mentality which some have which will eventually lead to their ruin when the banks turn their backs. That is not good for the land or production either.

 

[Bossfarmer]

Yes it will and in ways you can't imagine. It will stop people doing unprofitable things on their land in places they shouldn't be doing it, propped up by the tax payer. It will turn many farms back into businesses again instead of dole claimants. That may require a change of ownership but that's life. It will also discourage this land grab mentality which some have which will eventually lead to their ruin when the banks turn their backs. That is not good for the land or production either.

have you considered that if wheat price drops, milk stays at 20ppl/sheep exports are vastly reduced farming in the UK will be decimated without subs, 80k tractors and 150k combines don't buy themselves I think you are very unrealistic about the removal of subs, as said before wet hill/stock farms in the west of Scotland wont continue

 

[YorkshireAndrew]

why should farmers be rewarded for not expanding? this system of front loading the payments so that smaller farmers get more is stupid it encourages people to split their farms just to get the subs and doesn't reward progress

Ah the old 'progress' card , do away with all the smaller farms & send tractors miles & miles to farm land . Sell the houses & barns for development & family farms disappear .

 

[Pasty]

have you considered that if wheat price drops, milk stays at 20ppl/sheep exports are vastly reduced farming in the UK will be decimated without subs, 80k tractors and 150k combines don't buy themselves I think you are very unrealistic about the removal of subs, as said before wet hill/stock farms in the west of Scotland wont continue

They don't buy themselves, the tax payer does to provide equipment to people who grow crops where it is not viable. That is stupid and a waste of money.

 

[Bossfarmer]

Ah the old 'progress' card , do away with all the smaller farms & send tractors miles & miles to farm land . Sell the houses & barns for development & family farms disappear .

or the family farms expand and can stay profitable

 

[Bossfarmer]

They don't buy themselves, the tax payer does to provide equipment to people who grow crops where it is not viable. That is stupid and a waste of money.

so ur basically saying to hell with UK farming lets just import all our food

 

[Pasty]

so ur basically saying to hell with UK farming lets just import all our food

Not at all. Where did I say that? You do like that narrative I note.

 

[YorkshireAndrew]

or the family farms expand and can stay profitable

At the expense of who ?

 

[Bossfarmer]

At the expense of who ?

the ones who dont