Big J on radio 4..

[Big J]

6 hours ago, LeeGray said:

I can’t be arsed to back through all the posts but I’m sure you’ve said in this exact thread that you’ll go for grant funding. You want to take on a small plot of land. This will subsidise your distortion of the good life. 

 

I don't know you from adam and a lot of the stuff you put up on here is very useful and I admire what you’re doing work wise but on this subject you are being a total hypocrite.

I respectfully disagree. 

 

I've been in forestry/sawmilling for 10 years now. I've never grant funded anything. When I was milling up in Scotland, every single other sawmill in ASHS (Association of Scottish Hardwood Sawmillers) that I worked with in my area who was on a similar level to me had extensive grant funding for new kit. Sawmills, kilns, barns etc. We consciously chose not to do that. 

 

Down here, I was eligable for grant funding for the forwarder, but didn't take it up as it wouldn't have fitted with the timescale for when we needed it. If I got grant funding for something like a harvester (usually 40%) then that would directly result in an employed position, and the production from such a machine would likely produce additional subcontractual work (and possibly directly employed) for more people too.  This wouldn't be low paid work, rather £20/hr for chainsaw operatives or a bit less for machine operators. I'm not saying that I'm not being hypocritical as regards to this, but my point is that if the government coughs up £60k or something for 40% of a harvester, and it creates an employed position worth £200k over 6 years (that was the length of the last grant term, IIRC), as well as additional employment beyond that, I'd say it's pretty good value for money, especially compared to grants that subsidise farming.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Big J

[difflock]

So how or where do the farmers spend their, apparently, ill-gotten gains?

 and from a lifetime of observation,

I can only surmise locally, be it at a machinery dealer, car dealer, fuel station, the pub or the grocer.

So they are helping to support the local community.

food for thought.

m

[ESS]

42 minutes ago, Big J said:

I respectfully disagree. 

 

I've been in forestry/sawmilling for 10 years now. I've never grant funded anything. When I was milling up in Scotland, every single other sawmill in ASHS (Association of Scottish Hardwood Sawmillers) that I worked with in my area who was on a similar level to me had extensive grant funding for new kit. Sawmills, kilns, barns etc. We consciously chose not to do that. 

 

Down here, I was eligable for grant funding for the forwarder, but didn't take it up as it wouldn't have fitted with the timescale for when we needed it. If I got grant funding for something like a harvester (usually 40%) then that would directly result in an employed position, and the production from such a machine would likely produce additional subcontractual work (and possibly directly employed) for more people too.  This wouldn't be low paid work, rather £20/hr for chainsaw operatives or a bit less for machine operators. I'm not saying that I'm not being hypocritical as regards to this, but my point is that if the government coughs up £60k or something for 40% of a harvester, and it creates an employed position worth £200k over 6 years (that was the length of the last grant term, IIRC), as well as additional employment beyond that, I'd say it's pretty good value for money, especially compared to grants that subsidise farming.

...but someone else would do the harvesting work if you didn't. I know of one contractor that received slightly under £2m last year in machinery grants, some of it was regionalised and some of the machines are working out of area now undercutting local boys.

The grants in forestry are not a level playing field,..they are not there for everyone.

You keep say it would offer better value for money than farming , how do you know this , perhaps farm subsidies go towards providing jobs? What would it cost to keep those same people on benefits?

[ESS]

40 minutes ago, difflock said:

So how or where do the farmers spend their, apparently, ill-gotten gains?

 and from a lifetime of observation,

I can only surmise locally, be it at a machinery dealer, car dealer, fuel station, the pub or the grocer.

So they are helping to support the local community.

food for thought.

m

...and feed merchants, vets, fuel suppliers, fencing,..

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

43 minutes ago, difflock said:

So how or where do the farmers spend their, apparently, ill-gotten gains?

 and from a lifetime of observation,

I can only surmise locally, be it at a machinery dealer, car dealer, fuel station, the pub or the grocer.

So they are helping to support the local community.

food for thought.

m

Marcus, come on now, that’s lame!

 

If I was given a bucket full of free tut, I’d spend it locally too ?

[Big J]

3 minutes ago, ESS said:

...but someone else would do the harvesting work if you didn't. I know of one contractor that received slightly under £2m last year in machinery grants, some of it was regionalised and some of the machines are working out of area now undercutting local boys.

The grants in forestry are not a level playing field,..they are not there for everyone.

You keep say it would offer better value for money than farming , how do you know this , perhaps farm subsidies go towards providing jobs? What would it cost to keep those same people on benefits?

Fair enough. If I did grant fund something like a harvester, the vast bulk of the value of my machines would still be privately funded by me. Yes the work would be done by someone else, of course, but that's always going to be the case in any industry. 

 

I'd argue it would be much better value than leaving people on benefits, as as well as the direct employment, the supply chain benefits are extensive, and for a circa £10k/yr grant funding requirement (if you divided the £60k over the 6 year period that I believe that you need to keep the machine for), the revenue benefit in income tax throughout the supply chain would exceed that . 

 

I'm sure some farm subsidies do go towards jobs, but those subsidies that effectively pay farmers not to farm are clearly not included in this.

[AHPP]

J, If you take grant funding you'll be a hypocrite or as bad as all the other people who think they know what's best for people other than themselves. 

 

Scrap the bloody lot, subsidies and land use restrictions, and what works will become apparent very quickly.

[ESS]

4 minutes ago, Big J said:

Fair enough. If I did grant fund something like a harvester, the vast bulk of the value of my machines would still be privately funded by me. Yes the work would be done by someone else, of course, but that's always going to be the case in any industry. 

 

I'd argue it would be much better value than leaving people on benefits, as as well as the direct employment, the supply chain benefits are extensive, and for a circa £10k/yr grant funding requirement (if you divided the £60k over the 6 year period that I believe that you need to keep the machine for), the revenue benefit in income tax throughout the supply chain would exceed that . 

 

I'm sure some farm subsidies do go towards jobs, but those subsidies that effectively pay farmers not to farm are clearly not included in this.

4 years for grant .A contractor that wasn't grant aided would still be offering the same in terms of employment, tax etc.

The environmental payment part of subsidy farmers receive was imposed on them, if you were in a similar situation and consequently lost some of your income would you not consider wanting some form of compensation? Farmers do not write the rules, in the case of them owning the land they are being told what todo with their own land,..same with stewardship work,there has to be something to show for the money.

Livestock farmers have been hammered over the past 20 years and full traceability is required to put safe food on the tables, meat inspectors, slaughter house vets , tagging,records, the list goes on, they are at the mercy of weather, ..if there is such a word as profit it can get wiped out in one snow storm, hailstorm, dry or wet spell.We would have no security of food supply whatsoever. They literally have no idea unless they sell on forward markets, which isn't applicable to all sectors, what they are going to receive until the fall of the hammer. They would not have access to borrowing to provide the food we all eat without subsidy because the banks would have no security on their lending.

[MattyF]

Fair point I suppose. I don't think that planning law as regards to construciton should be conflated with what would be a public order offence (is that how you'd classify it?) if someone lived like a pig. 
 
I was saying to my wife today that I'd honestly be open to other proposals for planning reform (I've already stated my own preference). In Germany, you categorically cannot build outside of designated new development zones (at least in terms of permanent or primary housing - holiday homes/cabins are more widely permitted). However, every village has one, and there is a wide choice of affordable plots. They are also very keen on Gewerbegebiets (industry/business areas) too. Years ago, when we were still thinking of moving over there, we identified a nice alpine village not far from my Uncles called Allenbach, which had both a Neubaugebiet and a Gewerbegebiet. You could have bought a nice quarter acre plot for (what was then, in the heady days where a pound got you 1.35 Euros) about £30k and the industrial land was a bit cheaper, per square metre. 
 
I wouldn't mind necessarily being in a village here, or having my business premises away from my home in a little industrial yard. That seems like an even more unlikely option than my first choice though, especially as I'd like to own both rather than rent.

I think you should of gone for it! Your clearly not happy with this country despite living in one of its nicest parts.

[Big J]

19 minutes ago, ESS said:

4 years for grant .A contractor that wasn't grant aided would still be offering the same in terms of employment, tax etc.

The environmental payment part of subsidy farmers receive was imposed on them, if you were in a similar situation and consequently lost some of your income would you not consider wanting some form of compensation? Farmers do not write the rules, in the case of them owning the land they are being told what todo with their own land,..same with stewardship work,there has to be something to show for the money.

Livestock farmers have been hammered over the past 20 years and full traceability is required to put safe food on the tables, meat inspectors, slaughter house vets , tagging,records, the list goes on, they are at the mercy of weather, ..if there is such a word as profit it can get wiped out in one snow storm, hailstorm, dry or wet spell.We would have no security of food supply whatsoever. They literally have no idea unless they sell on forward markets, which isn't applicable to all sectors, what they are going to receive until the fall of the hammer. They would not have access to borrowing to provide the food we all eat without subsidy because the banks would have no security on their lending.

Can we just agree that the grant/subsidy/regulation element of farming is unfit for purpose? The whole system would work better if everyone just earned what they earned rather than having to jump through a 1001 hoops to get subsidies A through Z and in order not to fall foul of regulations C though T and not have fines F through Z imposed on them? 

 

I'm exhausted just discussing it on here, and I haven't even applied for anything yet! ?