A public "good" must be paid for from the public purse

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

do even the big profitable farms get subsidised?

 

I'll do you a screen shot to save you using the link:

[Mull]

Anyone who buys 2 chickens for a fiver should be strung up.

 

 

No they shouldn't.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[gooseflight]

If the farmers need it to survive

Some absolutely do, i.e., those receiving ~80% of income from subsidy.

 

I seriously question the 'cheap food' argument, which has been kicking around since the 50's. Supermarkets dictate food prices not producers.

[Billhook]

Can anyone explain the whole subsidised farming thing? Not being a farmer or from farming stock I don't know much about it. Is it a case of getting financial help if your farm is in trouble? What are the conditions of that help?

 

During World War 2 there was a desperate food shortage in the UK. Before the war we were reliant on shipping bringing in food from all over the world but German U boats put a stranglehold on the country.

 

"Dig for Britain" campaign meant that every bit of land, park, garden was dug up to grow food.

 

The great cry after the war was to make our farming efficient enough to feed ourselves so that we would never have to endure such hardship again.

 

Grants were given to rip up hedges to make fields more manageable for larger machinery. A lot of money was put into plant breeding, chemical control, fertiliser development and education.

 

Apart from those subsidies there was a deficiency payment if the price of wheat for instance fell below a certain level the government would step in and prop up the price to prevent bankruptcy and introduce a bit of stability.

 

This system seemed to work well without anyone complaining about farmers receiving this help

 

The EEC changed things. By the time I started farming in 1970 we had increased the yield of wheat from about 1.5 tons/acre to 3 tons/acre and by 1984 it was nearer 4 tons and the EU had to buy the surplus wheat and store it in intervention stores.

At the time there were "Grain Mountains" and "Wine Lakes" all costing a lot of money to store

 

Something had to be done so "Set Aside" was invented whereby we had to set aside 10% of all our land to fallow. We were paid for this but not nearly as much as if we grew a crop.

 

This was eventually changed in a political move to a "Single Farm Payment" which was designed to make farmers unpopular in the eye of the public by being deemed to be paid for doing nothing. The main aim of this was to make subsidies for farmers so unpopular that they could withdraw it altogether.

 

Back to square one then, import cheap food from abroad. Farming does not pay, land reverts to scrub and a whole generation of farmers sons head for the bright lights of the city.

 

The fact is we were at our healthiest as a country in WW2 as we did not eat too much and become too fat.

The drive for ever cheaper food just for the sake of it does no one any favours except the supermarkets.

[Mull]

I'll do you a screen shot to save you using the link:

 

 

I assume your going to follow that up with all the employment and other contributions to the country that this money creates?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mull]

During World War 2 there was a desperate food shortage in the UK. Before the war we were reliant on shipping bringing in food from all over the world but German U boats put a stranglehold on the country.

 

 

 

"Dig for Britain" campaign meant that every bit of land, park, garden was dug up to grow food.

 

 

 

The great cry after the war was to make our farming efficient enough to feed ourselves so that we would never have to endure such hardship again.

 

 

 

Grants were given to rip up hedges to make fields more manageable for larger machinery. A lot of money was put into plant breeding, chemical control, fertiliser development and education.

 

 

 

Apart from those subsidies there was a deficiency payment if the price of wheat for instance fell below a certain level the government would step in and prop up the price to prevent bankruptcy and introduce a bit of stability.

 

 

 

This system seemed to work well without anyone complaining about farmers receiving this help

 

 

 

The EEC changed things. By the time I started farming in 1970 we had increased the yield of wheat from about 1.5 tons/acre to 3 tons/acre and by 1984 it was nearer 4 tons and the EU had to buy the surplus wheat and store it in intervention stores.

 

At the time there were "Grain Mountains" and "Wine Lakes" all costing a lot of money to store

 

 

 

Something had to be done so "Set Aside" was invented whereby we had to set aside 10% of all our land to fallow. We were paid for this but not nearly as much as if we grew a crop.

 

 

 

This was eventually changed in a political move to a "Single Farm Payment" which was designed to make farmers unpopular in the eye of the public by being deemed to be paid for doing nothing. The main aim of this was to make subsidies for farmers so unpopular that they could withdraw it altogether.

 

 

 

Back to square one then, import cheap food from abroad. Farming does not pay, land reverts to scrub and a whole generation of farmers sons head for the bright lights of the city.

 

 

 

The fact is we were at our healthiest as a country in WW2 as we did not eat too much and become too fat.

 

The drive for ever cheaper food just for the sake of it does no one any favours except the supermarkets.

 

 

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I assume your going to follow that up with all the employment and other contributions to the country that this money creates?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Take a wild stab in the dark.....

 

How about page 2:

[Duncansimpson]

No they shouldn't.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

Try telling that to the poor chicken. Everyday is 3% of your life and you never see the light of day. Sorry but it's just not right.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Agreed :thumbup1:

 

I was going to plug back to WWII to answer FT's question, but I thought if I did it would be too long winded.

 

It's imperative to look back at least that far to understand where we are now, and where we might be heading, but it needs quite a bit of reading / talking to form a decent appreciation of the situation.

[Mull]

Take a wild stab in the dark.....

 

 

 

How about page 2:

 

 

Your point?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk