Victim Attitudes

[Pond digger]

If farmi

Total income from farming in the UK is broadly equivalent to total subsidy paid - the State is paying farmers a margin to produce food that would, otherwise, be produced elsewhere in the world more cheaply.

In economic terms it's a waste of money, and a drain on the national coffers.

Countless UK farmers consider themselves 'producers' when they are, in this light, the holders of sinecures on the public purse less justifiable than, say, a social worker, a nurse or a teacher.

It's an uncomfortable truth.

Oddly enough, the tax-paying public appear happy to continue paying farm subsidies but (perhaps because they grasp this truth much better than do the recipients) prefer to see the cash attached to environmental standards.

(This explains why I do not go around describing my environmental scheme's project officer as "a little Hitler". I am glad that the public consider his job, and ours, as worth supporting).

I don't see it as any great disaster if your figures are correct. If it's essentially costing the country nothing to keep rural communities going whilst maintaining agricultural land in good order, then it's all well worthwhile.

 

[Pond digger]

If farmi

Total income from farming in the UK is broadly equivalent to total subsidy paid - the State is paying farmers a margin to produce food that would, otherwise, be produced elsewhere in the world more cheaply.

In economic terms it's a waste of money, and a drain on the national coffers.

Countless UK farmers consider themselves 'producers' when they are, in this light, the holders of sinecures on the public purse less justifiable than, say, a social worker, a nurse or a teacher.

It's an uncomfortable truth.

Oddly enough, the tax-paying public appear happy to continue paying farm subsidies but (perhaps because they grasp this truth much better than do the recipients) prefer to see the cash attached to environmental standards.

(This explains why I do not go around describing my environmental scheme's project officer as "a little Hitler". I am glad that the public consider his job, and ours, as worth supporting).

I don't see it as any great disaster if your figures are correct. If it's essentially costing the country nothing to keep rural communities going whilst maintaining agricultural land in good order, then it's all well worthwhile.

 

[czechmate]

When we started in environment schemes 10 years ago the public made no comment at all. Now they say they are glad I am tidying up "that mess".

Maybe the minority guardian reading lefties and Mr Monbiot would prefer rewilding of the countryside but most ordinary folk either don't care or would prefer to see it "tidy". For it is tidiness that promotes efficient food production, less harbouring of vermin and pernicious weeds. This has been know for about 4 thousand years, maybe more, and is a fundamental truth that no amount of left wing nonsense can overturn.

4 thousand years is just a blink of an eye in the history of the planet. It was doing very well for itself for a lot, LOT longer without us "tidying" it up

 

[caveman]

4 thousand years is just a blink of an eye in the history of the planet. It was doing very well for itself for a lot, LOT longer without us "tidying" it up

So what is your answer to trying to accommodate (what is it, getting on for nine billion? ) people's on the planet and carry on living in the past?

 

[Walterp]

Well done with the edit, adding the last two paragraphs.
Kind of negates the thrust of scorn intended in the previous. Eh?
And justifies, in your opinion, being paid for "doing fekk all"?

My point is that, far from being 'producers' of added value, the aggregate position of UK farming is accepting a margin from the taxpayer to produce food that could (in most cases) be produced cheaper elsewhere.

The EU applies subsidies in this direction for non-economic reasons (supply stability, depopulation, solidarity, etc) and, thus, enables UK farmers to feel that they are producing something on their own terms when, often, they do not.

The UK has repeatedly said that it would discontinue this, but subsidise the environment instead.

[This is an analysis, not an endorsement].

 

[Walterp]

When we started in environment schemes 10 years ago the public made no comment at all. Now they say they are glad I am tidying up "that mess".

Maybe the minority guardian reading lefties and Mr Monbiot would prefer rewilding of the countryside but most ordinary folk either don't care or would prefer to see it "tidy". For it is tidiness that promotes efficient food production, less harbouring of vermin and pernicious weeds. This has been know for about 4 thousand years, maybe more, and is a fundamental truth that no amount of left wing nonsense can overturn.

Why not read Oliver Rackham's 'The History of the Countryside'?

Lauded as "a magisterial 400-page account of the British landscape from prehistory to the present day, with chapters on aspects ranging from woodland and hedgerows to marshes and the sea" its practical thrust is that 'tidiness' runs contrary to sound ecology, and is an obsession of farmers (who do tend to over-do it).

I think of his remarks whenever I see a hedge thrashed into uselessness.

 

[Walterp]

Did you not read what was written on the side of that bus?
I told you before.
There are over 10000 civil servants in Brussells, being paid more than our PM and paying a top rate of 16% tax to boot, in an organisation that's telling us what to do with the little bit of money they give back to us.
And you think that's a good deal?

I am pointing out that the EU charges a membership fee, which is applied towards running costs and various projects.

The problem you cannot overcome, I suggest, is that if a State in in the EU it can influence the level and use of those fees whilst - if it merely an EEA member in order to join in the Single Market - it has to pay the fees without being able to influence how they are spent.

That is the basic untruth that underpinned the 'leave' campaign.

 

[caveman]

I see nothing wrong with paying a fee to make a profit from any particular market.
If there is no profit. Market elswhere.

 

[Walterp]

I see nothing wrong with paying a fee to make a profit from any particular market.
If there is no profit. Market elswhere.

Yes, that's what we (and the Germans, etc) do at present when we hand over our annual EU fee.

 

[jendan]

I see nothing wrong with paying a fee to make a profit from any particular market.
If there is no profit. Market elswhere.

But for the same fee,you could have a say in how it is run.

 

[caveman]

My point is that, far from being 'producers' of added value, the aggregate position of UK farming is accepting a margin from the taxpayer to produce food that could (in most cases) be produced cheaper elsewhere.

The EU applies subsidies in this direction for non-economic reasons (supply stability, depopulation, solidarity, etc) and, thus, enables UK farmers to feel that they are producing something on their own terms when, often, they do not.

The UK has repeatedly said that it would discontinue this, but subsidise the environment instead.

[This is an analysis, not an endorsement].

You may not of noticed, but, payments are slanted towards reduced production already.
I would suggest. That where the ideals of schemes are applied with more vision, they would indeed save the country money and deliver a return, via reduced imported inputs of ferts etc and wasting energy and resources, whilst also leaving slack for cheaper foods in from trading partners.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Total income from farming in the UK is broadly equivalent to total subsidy paid - the State is paying farmers a margin to produce food that would, otherwise, be produced elsewhere in the world more cheaply.

In economic terms it's a waste of money, and a drain on the national coffers.

Countless UK farmers consider themselves 'producers' when they are, in this light, the holders of sinecures on the public purse less justifiable than, say, a social worker, a nurse or a teacher.

It's an uncomfortable truth.

Oddly enough, the tax-paying public appear happy to continue paying farm subsidies but (perhaps because they grasp this truth much better than do the recipients) prefer to see the cash attached to environmental standards.

(This explains why I do not go around describing my environmental scheme's project officer as "a little Hitler". I am glad that the public consider his job, and ours, as worth supporting).

Not correct.

Firstly the subsidy is not paid towards farmers producing food.

Money is paid to charities, food manufacturers & producers (british sugar), environmental control of farmers activities, environmental policies such as "5% Greening", environmental areas such as Stewardship. Of course farmers pay taxes, buy goods which pay taxes and create labour which pay taxes.

When you consider the burden of both "Greening" and "Regulation" it is pretty obvious that HMG significantly harm the bottom line of all farms.

The beneficary is little more than "Perception" by do gooders that they are having some kind of influence on "nasty farmers" ... whilst in reality they are just creating barren wastlands devoid of any use to man nor beast.


"In economic terms it's a waste of money, and a drain on the national coffers." = Probably the most stupid statement I have ever read, everyone needs to eat.

"Countless UK farmers consider themselves 'producers' when they are, in this light, the holders of sinecures on the public purse less justifiable than, say, a social worker, a nurse or a teacher." = Everyone would die without food. Farmers get a VERY small proportion of their income from subsidies ... a tax of 4p on bread would pay for most cereals producers.

"to produce food that would, otherwise, be produced elsewhere in the world more cheaply" = Just look at the environmental damage caused in China by producing "things more cheaply" ... vast areas of the world destroyed and polluted for decades in the pursuit of rich people getting richer. Of course everyones job could be done cheaper abroad ... such as Lawyers, Politicians, Councils, Judges, Policemen, Doctors ... but ultimately there ceases to be a country.

And what was "Cheap" soon becomes not only "Expensive" but power has changed hands to dictatorships as we are seeing with North Korea and China - another stupid idea created by stupid ignorant fools - "useful idiots" being used to destroy the UK.

You're just talking about the destruction of an industry for political dogma as was done to the miners, the dockers, the steel workers, the car workers ... where did this propaganda come from ? Who is benefitting ... certainly NOT the common man in the UK.


Yours is just another political opinion piece which could literally have been pumped out by Labour HQ central.

Disgusted.

 

[caveman]

But for the same,you could have a say in how it is run.

Thought we were going for a free trade agreements?
But if a fee is payable just for a profitable trade so be it.
And I have no more desire to tell "them" how to run their affairs than I do for "them" to instruct me/we.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Thought we were going for a free trade agreements?
But if a fee is payable just for a profitable trade so be it

Is it profitable trade ? Or will we be subjected to massive cheap imports in another attempt to destabilise the UK and force us back into the hands of the EU.

I'm moving towards a spell in world tariffs and WTO rules of at least a few years or until the EU loses it's hunger to make the UK "Pay".

Whilst the EU is put on tender hooks ... the UK can focus on beneficial trade elsewhere and boosting oour own industry for more expensive EU products.

Let the EU eat cake.

 

[caveman]

Is it profitable trade ? Or will we be subjected to massive cheap imports in another attempt to destabilise the UK and force us back into the hands of the EU.

I'm moving towards a spell in world tariffs and WTO rules of at least a few years or until the EU loses it's hunger to make the UK "Pay".

Whilst the EU is put on tender hooks ... the UK can focus on beneficial trade elsewhere and boosting oour own industry for more expensive EU products.

Let the EU eat cake.

Yes.
I was actually of the mind of tariffs. If anything.
No other payments.
Take it or leave it.

 

[7610 super q]

But for the same fee,you could have a say in how it is run.

First time for everything, I suppose.

 

[manhill]

Lerner's famous psychological experiments, rigging up victims to electric shocks, demonstrated that onlookers didn't pity those getting shocked but, instead, disparaged them. And as the severity of the shocks was increased, the heckling didn't tail off but actually worsened.

You can see victim blaming all around: victims should 'man up', or 'they deserve it', and those living in poverty are lazy and unmotivated. If only students would cease buying mobile phones, their student debt would become affordable.

Lerner concluded it is a way of denying that a problem exists and, thus, denying both culpability and responsibility.

In the TFF version of the Good Book, the Good Samaritan would have muttered 'for chrissake's grow a pair, and get up off the floor', whilst continuing on his way to Jericho without lending either hand or money.

This trait informs contemporary Republican attitudes both in the USA, and for the Right domestically: the burden of taxation on corporations and the wealthy should fall, whilst the less well-off should pay for it via reduced expenditure.

But in a democracy, interested in the greatest good for the greatest number, is not the practical effect of these short-sighted policies to hang a target around the necks of the top 25% of the well-off in both countries?

It's wrong to disparage those of lower abilities. Just throwing money at them and letting them lie in bed is wrong.
These people need leadership, discipline and pride in behaving to acceptable social standards.
I therefore propose that every morning they muster outside their homes in straight lines and are picked up and bussed to outlying farms to work improving the land and countryside. Less pesticide would be required with constant hoeing.

 

[Walterp]

It's wrong to disparage those of lower abilities. Just throwing money at them and letting them lie in bed is wrong.
These people need leadership, discipline and pride in behaving to acceptable social standards.
I therefore propose that every morning they muster outside their homes in straight lines and are picked up and bussed to outlying farms to work improving the land and countryside. Less pesticide would be required with constant hoeing.

Already been tried: Year Zero.

 

[Walterp]

You may not of noticed, but, payments are slanted towards reduced production already.
I would suggest. That where the ideals of schemes are applied with more vision, they would indeed save the country money and deliver a return, via reduced imported inputs of ferts etc and wasting energy and resources, whilst also leaving slack for cheaper foods in from trading partners.

Can you please explain what this means?

 

[caveman]

Can you please explain what this means?

Errrr.
I thought you were suggesting there was no monetary benefit to UK plc in paying subs to farmers?
I was suggesting that there may be or could be profit by savings made by that investment.
You don't get owt for nowt..... whether that be achieved through production or non production.