UK Farming subs to continue until 2022.......MABYE WE DO MATTER??

[llamedos]

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farmers-must-fight-for-agricultural-policy-after-the-election.htm

 

[7610 super q]

I don't think much of any of them TBH. Wouldn't bother voting at all......but the thought of Labour trying to sort Brexit appalls me.

 

[andybk]

sounds like RSPB and National trust lobbyists have done their job , keeping all the enviro payments in place , (money for nothing brigade ) Forget actual production .

 

[AndrewM]

Surely this just means they are confirming that we wont be out of the eu until 2022
they will have no choice but to pay the subs as they will be coming from the eu.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...2-philip-hammond-warns-eu-exit-could-take-at/

 

[ajcc]

sounds like RSPB and National trust lobbyists have done their job , keeping all the enviro payments in place , (money for nothing brigade ) Forget actual production .

I suspect that those two charities will be some of the first to suffer under a post brexit scenario. Land will once again be valued primarily for food production and environmentalism will v.much play second fiddle. A government can justify subsidising food to a population a lot easier than subsidising dormouse habitat despite the modern enviro./countryfile obsession....I reckon those two charities are going to have to re-evaluate what they can and cannot achieve without taxpayer subsidy.

 

[Badshot]

Surely this just means they are confirming that we wont be out of the eu until 2022
they will have no choice but to pay the subs as they will be coming from the eu.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...2-philip-hammond-warns-eu-exit-could-take-at/

Isn't that article out of date?

 

[Bossfarmer]

I will be stunned and amazed if the tories don't win with a comfortable majority. With Trump and Brexit it was alwaus going to be close and could have gone either way. With the GE, UKIP and the Lib Dems are out of the picture in a way so it's a straight battle between the tories and labour and I really can't see labour winning with Corbyn in charge.
As a matter of interest, what's Labour's policy on agri?

no mention of subsidies

 

[Bossfarmer]

the way i see it the tories have gone out of their way to continue to support farmers they did not need to even mention it theyre guaranteed to get back in, labour could be a bit anti farming though

 

[Goweresque]

I suspect that those two charities will be some of the first to suffer under a post brexit scenario. Land will once again be valued primarily for food production and environmentalism will v.much play second fiddle. A government can justify subsidising food to a population a lot easier than subsidising dormouse habitat despite the modern enviro./countryfile obsession....I reckon those two charities are going to have to re-evaluate what they can and cannot achieve without taxpayer subsidy.

I'm afraid you have that totally the wrong way round. Environmental subsidies are infinitely more politically acceptable to the UK voting public than food subsidies are. Rightly or wrongly they see food subsidies as money for old rope for already wealthy farmers, whereas environmental subsidies are seen as helping poor wee little furry creatures and endangered plants. The fact that a lot of the money for the environment would go to organisations like the RSPB and the National Trust who are stuffed with people on salaries many farmers could only dream of (plus pension rights of course) is irrelevant. The public don't see the massed ranks of well paid managers in the National Trust, they see Farmer Giles driving around on his tractor and think 'He's getting loads of my money!!'.

Its the consequence of rising wealth - people have more money in their pockets than they have ever had, food costs an increasingly small % of that income, so they don't value food very highly. And they do want to make themselves feel good by helping the butterflies and the trees. And at the end of the day what is politically acceptable is down to the whim of the voters, not some intrinsic objective truth. If the voters value environment over food production, guess what we'll get?

Edit: there's also the issue of chemicals and fertilisers - rightly or wrongly the image of farmers is of them plastering the countryside in noxious substances. So in a choice between paying for that to continue, or paying for that to stop, again, farming won't win.

 

[lazy farmer]

I'm afraid you have that totally the wrong way round. Environmental subsidies are infinitely more politically acceptable to the UK voting public than food subsidies are. Rightly or wrongly they see food subsidies as money for old rope for already wealthy farmers, whereas environmental subsidies are seen as helping poor wee little furry creatures and endangered plants. The fact that a lot of the money for the environment would go to organisations like the RSPB and the National Trust who are stuffed with people on salaries many farmers could only dream of (plus pension rights of course) is irrelevant. The public don't see the massed ranks of well paid managers in the National Trust, they see Farmer Giles driving around on his tractor and think 'He's getting loads of my money!!'.

Its the consequence of rising wealth - people have more money in their pockets than they have ever had, food costs an increasingly small % of that income, so they don't value food very highly. And they do want to make themselves feel good by helping the butterflies and the trees. And at the end of the day what is politically acceptable is down to the whim of the voters, not some intrinsic objective truth. If the voters value environment over food production, guess what we'll get?

Edit: there's also the issue of chemicals and fertilisers - rightly or wrongly the image of farmers is of them plastering the countryside in noxious substances. So in a choice between paying for that to continue, or paying for that to stop, again, farming won't win.

agree with 99% of that just to say that rising wealth is not a given anymore, housing costs are severely limiting consumer spending until that is sorted no government could truck any real food inflation so I do wonder what post 2022 will look like.(personally I would prefer environmental over what we have now if we have to have any at all.)

 

[Henarar]

agree with 99% of that just to say that rising wealth is not a given anymore, housing costs are severely limiting consumer spending until that is sorted no government could truck any real food inflation so I do wonder what post 2022 will look like.(personally I would prefer environmental over what we have now if we have to have any at all.)

environmental will only be geared to the big boys in a attempt [that will fail] to put right what they have f**ked

 

[lazy farmer]

environmental will only be geared to the big boys in a attempt [that will fail] to put right what they have fudgeed

who have fudged ?

 

[Princess Pooper]

environmental will only be geared to the big boys in a attempt [that will fail] to put right what they have fudgeed

There are some fantastic environmental schemes running on large farms. And small. As someone said earlier, it is the person / team managing that makes the difference. Like everything else, if they have the passion then they will make it work., if they are cynically going through the motions, they won't.

 

[GTB]

the way i see it the tories have gone out of their way to continue to support farmers they did not need to even mention it theyre guaranteed to get back in, labour could be a bit anti farming though

yes labour are a bit anti farming but traditionally farming has always done well under labour because they tend to mess up the economy hence creating a weak pound which used to help us immensly.

 

[exmoor dave]

I suspect that those two charities will be some of the first to suffer under a post brexit scenario. Land will once again be valued primarily for food production and environmentalism will v.much play second fiddle. A government can justify subsidising food to a population a lot easier than subsidising dormouse habitat despite the modern enviro./countryfile obsession....I reckon those two charities are going to have to re-evaluate what they can and cannot achieve without taxpayer subsidy.

Environmentalism will still come first on NT land such as moorland (be it in hand or tenanted out) and other in hand land, they have their agenda and any subs are just a bonus (round here the NT don't actually get many subs off the moors, the farmers do).

There's lowland land on this estate in HLS kept in hand by the NT, when the scheme ends I bet the conditions won't.

All the moorland is SSSI so a no subs scenario will make no difference to the conditions and restrictions put on us farmers.

They may find budgets squeezed, but round here most of the subs find their way to the farmer (even on in-hand land as the grazier usually is paid the scheme money),
Ok a rent may be paid back to the nt, which is where the squeeze may come in.


As a positive I hope (&think) they they will come to realise what good value for money it is to have farmers actually managing and doing capital works on ground like we speak of.
Using our time and kit that we mostly already have, definitely delivers more value, we make £1 go much further than a organisation like the NT using own staff or contractors ever could.
Just got to make sure we don't sell ourselves too cheap.

 

[caveman]

You've all gone way off topic.
This is the Bosses thread.
He's only interested in trousering loads of free dosh for doing the same old same and nothing else.
I think you should get back to bashing him.

 

[Hilly]

It's a bit of a worry that the Torys think that bringing back fox hunting is a major issue in the countryside. Leave well alone I'd say.

They are not going to bring back fox hunting, they are going to offer a free vote on it and put it too bed one way or other, alot dont like hunting but they dislike things getting banned etc etc etc more.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

They are not going to bring back fox hunting, they are going to offer a free vote on it and put it too bed one way or other, alot dont like hunting but they dislike things getting banned etc etc etc more.

could lose them a lot of votes, rather silly thing to do

 

[Kiwi Pete]

You've all gone way off topic.
This is the Bosses thread.
He's only interested in trousering loads of free dosh for doing the same old same and nothing else.
I think you should get back to bashing him.

Gonna end up in OffTopic soon enough

 

[ajcc]

So if environmental concerns trump food production votewise one would think a manifesto would be ideal opportunity to declare. That less intensive environmentally focused forms of land management will receive ongoing taxpayer support while production agriculture will be actively discouraged through pesticide/fertiliser taxation.
But no the Conservative sound bite says to produce more British food not less! Which surely means intensify not extensify.