You must earn your keep after Brexit, farmers told.

[wanton dwarf]

The Times is pro Remain. Most of the commentators on that paper are concentrated on keeping VERY well paid jobs in London at the expense of everyone else.


Look we are a large group of people who predominantly vote Conservative. We have a large amount of power we just need to group together.

Divide and conquer. We all act as individuals and are treated as such.

As regards subsidies, the VERY LEAST you should all aim for is the destruction of funding to all the administration, environment, Quango & Charity jobs in HMG.

These organisations are actively harming you everyday of their lives. It's pretty clear from the "Select Commitees" the Civil Service, Quangos and Local Government are reserving money for themselves.

When their neck is firmly on the line there is a bargaining position.


Stop playing fair.
Stop waiting for it to happen.


I'll give you an example: "Stop The Hate" is actively campaigning to remove advertisers from papers like the Daily Mail, Sun etc ... in some cases it has worked with LEGO removing their promotions in the Daily Mail. These people think nothing of removing YOUR voice from politics.

Stop playing fair.
Get organised.
Gain a voice.
Keep pushing.

 

[thesilentone]

There is a hunger for change, which is inevitable one way or the other. The current system is antiquated to the point of embarrassment and rotten to the core with corruption.

So, the rhetoric from Ms Batters has light the blue touch paper, so the debate begins, however there is a long long way to go.

The debate must be reasonable and balanced, changes to the way large and small are subsidised must be based on something !!! How can anyone go to the taxpayer and simply ask for more if unable to answer the question 'why, what, where, who, when?

Every industry calling on the public purse must justify the call, not just expect it !

There are some great positive responses above, and the right plan for a sustainable future for British Farming can and will be found, but, my only fear is there are too many who are kidding themselves, or are living in the past with an attitude that will act as a dead weight.

Fear of the unknown in a marginal business is no fun, but greet the change, open the books then see what the opposing views are.

 

[wanton dwarf]

There is a hunger for change, which is inevitable one way or the other. The current system is antiquated to the point of embarrassment and rotten to the core with corruption.

So, the rhetoric from Ms Batters has light the blue touch paper, so the debate begins, however there is a long long way to go.

The debate must be reasonable and balanced, changes to the way large and small are subsidised must be based on something !!! How can anyone go to the taxpayer and simply ask for more if unable to answer the question 'why, what, where, who, when?

Every industry calling on the public purse must justify the call, not just expect it !

There are some great positive responses above, and the right plan for a sustainable future for British Farming can and will be found, but, my only fear is there are too many who are kidding themselves, or are living in the past with an attitude that will act as a dead weight.

Fear of the unknown in a marginal business is no fun, but greet the change, open the books then see what the opposing views are.

A fine argument BUT ...

Any money "saved" by farmers giving up entitlements will go straight into the pockets of WHO ?

Just look at the claimants of funding already "reserved" for farming ... £millions going to charities, quangos and food producers.

The first demand is a clearout of those who should be getting NOTHING or if they do should pay TAXES like every other business.

 

[DrDunc]

The first thing to do is get the public to back active farmers and buy British.

Make them realise foreign food gives a livelihood to foreigners.

British food gives jobs and food to Britain.

The public must also be turned against the big quango's like the national trust, RSPB, and large landowners who actively campaign against subsidy, while themselves receiving millions in subsidy.

It is possible, look at the Brexit and trump results.

Articles like this click here should be used to make the public understand that cheap food cones from active British farmers, but we need their support to continue producing it.

If they don't support us, the supermarket's will give their money to foreign countries.

Make the public realise that if they buy British, their money stays in Britain.

 

[milkloss]

The first thing to do is get the public to back active farmers and buy British.

Make them realise foreign food gives a livelihood to foreigners.

British food gives jobs and food to Britain.

The public must also be turned against the big quango's like the national trust, RSPB, and large landowners who actively campaign against subsidy, while themselves receiving millions in subsidy.

It is possible, look at the Brexit and trump results.

Articles like this click here should be used to make the public understand that cheap food cones from active British farmers, but we need their support to continue producing it.

If they don't support us, the supermarket's will give their money to foreign countries.

Make the public realise that if they buy British, their money stays in Britain.

Yes but it must be remembered that many farmers are concerned about their migrant workers having difficulty getting into the uk so the foreign food-foreign workers has to be a very careful argument.

The other thing to remember is that the public want cheap food and don't care where it comes from in reality so we will need to play on their whimsical beliefs to pressure the government for further support. We need to lobby public support to gain political support even if it's a bit, well, dodgy. Don't think any of the other organisations fighting for cash are going to play fair; an issue I'm not sure the NFU are ready to tackle imo.

 

[thesilentone]

 

[Hilly]

Those of us left in farming earn our keep as it is.

 

[DrDunc]

Those of us left in farming earn our keep as it is.

Aye, and most don't earn their keep without subsidy

 

[Qman]

>>>The first thing to do is get the public to back active farmers and buy British.

It might help if we practised what we preach.

 

[Henarar]

The public must also be turned against the big quango's like the national trust, RSPB, and large landowners who actively campaign against subsidy, while themselves receiving millions in subsidy.

It is possible, look at the Brexit and trump results.

Articles like this click here should be used to make the public understand that cheap food cones from active British farmers, but we need their support to continue producing it.

so why is the NFU not highlighting these hypocrites when they have a go at the cap system and call for subs to be scrapped after making a bloody fortune out of them ? @Guy Smith
mind you there are a few "I am all right jacks" "I have done very well thanks" on here that say just the same thing

 

[Cowabunga]

Aye, and most don't earn their keep without subsidy

Exactly. They [that's 'us'] supply cheap food. So cheap that it is sold at below the cost of production.

There will probably be carnage in agricultural terms. The food gap will not be filled by more expensive goods ex-UK farms, let nobody kid themselves. It will be imported from whoever can supply it cheapest with few restrictions, if any. Trade 'deals' may mean selling UK agriculture down the river in return for access to UK service industries, technology, vehicle sales, and so on to export markets. We get to export other goods as long as we accept their agricultural produce. What else have some of those markets/countries got to trade with us?

 

[Danllan]

Get quite fed up with various utilities happy to send a very expensive team of people here to argue over a couple of pounds of compensation...

You got that right, but who are going to tell it to? The only people that would care are the shareholders, those arguing and the ones who sent them are all part of the problem.

 

[Danllan]

A lot of the above is arguing for a pro-active body to represent farmers and their needs, concerns and interests. Something that wouldn't be part of the establishment, and would kick up a fuss when necessary. The NFU is a waste of time and money in this regard; FFA could be a goer if they started thinking as well as acting, and preferably first.

Honest conclusion = a new organisation is needed. But then we are back to square one, because who has the knowledge, energy and time to do it properly? A Catch 22.

The NFU... hmm... the organisation has the necessary infrastructure, just not the right people with right ideas. After careful consideration, I advocate a revolution within the NFU....

(and I am not joking either...)

 

[DrDunc]

A lot of the above is arguing for a pro-active body to represent farmers and their needs, concerns and interests. Something that wouldn't be part of the establishment, and would kick up a fuss when necessary. The NFU is a waste of time and money in this regard; FFA could be a goer if they started thinking as well as acting, and preferably first.

Honest conclusion = a new organisation is needed. But then we are back to square one, because who has the knowledge, energy and time to do it properly? A Catch 22.

The NFU... hmm... the organisation has the necessary infrastructure, just not the right people with right ideas. After careful consideration, I advocate a revolution within the NFU....

(and I am not joking either...)

A change in the NFU response is the first step.

They (we!) then need to employ the same lobbyists and promotion companies that the quango's and charity bodies are currently using to undermine agriculture.

Those lobbyists /promoters know how to do what the NFU obviously doesn't or doesn't want to do.

 

[glasshouse]

Hmmm....... glaring mistake at the beginning, that subs are dependent on the amount of land "owned"
That statement is correct, bps is a landowning su
Anyway, best bit..........The National Trust calling for a end to the above system........The same national trust who are one of the countries largest land owners, with one of the largest bps claims, even before the fact the tenants rents they collect........ have bps factored in.......... wonder if the NT can see the problem here........... ?

that statement is correct, bps is a landowning subsidy

 

[wanton dwarf]

Aye, and most don't earn their keep without subsidy

If you refused to take the subsidy you would still be under all the rules and facing large fines for non compliance.

Otherwise as a farm we'd already be out.

 

[Willie adie]

Farming has to be a very unique Industry where business run at a loss and rely on subsidies to tip them into profit.

No other business would be allowed to operate that way.

My opinion. If you need subsidies to keep your business solvent you shouldnt be in business

 

[wanton dwarf]

Farming has to be a very unique Industry where business run at a loss and rely on subsidies to tip them into profit.

No other business would be allowed to operate that way.

My opinion. If you need subsidies to keep your business solvent you shouldnt be in business

A failure in food production leads to lots of people dying, rioting and war ... this doesn't happen in car manufacturing, computer software, mobile phones or sofa making.

 

[exmoor dave]

Am sure i have read somewhere that Subs specifically should not be factored into rent reviews

Definitely taken in to account here, was top of the potential income list from the agent at last review.

that statement is correct, bps is a landowning subsidy

I know exactly what you mean, as in it ends up in the landlord pocket either way.
But the reality is its claimed by tenants as well (unless you're going to tell us all you don't claim any?),
the article is aimed at the public and it's factually incorrect for the writer to say it's claimed by "landowners", it gives a far worse impression than is the actual reality,
In fact I think the public would be far more sympathetic to the idea of subs if it was made clear it's not just paid to landowning bogeymen

Ask yourself this- if subs went tomorrow, who would be worse off, you or your landlord?


The answer here is us, our rent like most people isn't structured so the landlord takes it all, only a proportion when ag value is included in the maths, in fact we'd keep a far bigger proportion if you factor in the actual ag value of the land we rent.
Subs go, we're worse of than the landlord, even if we could negotiate a reduced rent, we still would lose more than the landlord.

 

[Hilly]

Aye, and most don't earn their keep without subsidy

If they have not the last few years they are going to be killed off in the next few years then thats for sure.