Making the news today....

[john p]

It is wrong but it would completely fall apart(certainly for the small farms) at the moment without some protection.
 
Growing up we never were tenants thankfully. (well the bank could be seen as owner!) but that meant the best part of 30 years being poor (dad and grandad borrowed £400k in 1970) once it was paid for he was that fed up of it (grandad dead by that point too! close to losing it quite a few times) he sold 75% and things have obviously been fine since then. A long road though.
It probably makes not far off now money wise diversified and a lot smaller than “farming” it ever did. He’s mid 70s now but won’t dare to stop in case times get hard again (even though he doesn’t need any more money)
That’s why farmer bashing pisses me off (not aimed at you just in general)

There’s no doubt that the real wronguns are the supermarkets driving prices into the floor, but farmers quite often don’t do themselves any favours, the amount of hangers and branches left in the road after they’ve been hedge cutting round (right, I’m going to stop here as I’ve had one too many gins!).

[WesD]

1 minute ago, matelot said:

What would happen to farmland prices if subsidies were reduced? Are they not likely to go down? Lower farmland prices are likely to mean new farmers would need less capital to start their farm.... What's an acre of arable land worth now? £10k an acre? You not think food would be cheaper if it was £2k an acre?

 

Really? I'm on here arguing to reduce farming subsidies. That's likely to reduce the value of the farmland/ forestry held by the family company... 

So you think the farmers who own the land now would give it up or sell it at a loss or would they put the price of food up to cover loss of subsidy?!

 

Also when we have left the EU and imports have tariffs they’ll have a percentage to play with to undercut food from the EU and still put it up in price. 

 

Farmers will not not take the loss, supermarkets will definitely not take the loss soooooo who will? No one food prices will rise to cover loss in subsidy. 

 

We as the consumer will have no choice but to pay it sooooo many working families will become vulnerable and the price of land will stay the same as due to price adjustment farmers profits will stay the same. 

 

Food is is a necessity we can’t live without it, we can’t just stop buying it because it’s gone up in price. 

 

Lastly if it did sky rocket in price due to loss of subsidy the tax payers, government would have to raise the amount of benefits people receive to allow people on benifits to feed themselves. 

[onetruth]

Reading back, it seems nobody is making the crucial distinction between farmers and landowners (apart from @kevinjohnsonmbe).

 

With regards to subsidies, the current system is not great.  But the idea of abolishing all agri-subsidies and letting the market sort itself out is terrible.  Nevermind the effects on those working in the industry and all us consumers, which would be unpredictable but almost certainly very painful, the real concern might be existential.  Twice in the last century Britain was nearly starved into submission, and these were at times when we had an empire and wealthy sympathetic ally to help us out.  If we don't subsidise our inefficient farming industry, we will have but a tiny fraction of the capacity to feed our cities if, for whatever reason, our ability to import food disappears.  This isn't a crazy could-never-happen scenario, it has been hundreds of years since we produced a net surplus of food.

 

We definitely need to sort out how we subsidise, both what and to whom.  But we'll still need to do it.  Proper custodianship is essential, and that will come with a hefty price-tag. 

[the village idiot]

11 minutes ago, onetruth said:

Reading back, it seems nobody is making the crucial distinction between farmers and landowners (apart from @kevinjohnsonmbe).

I think Commando raised this issue too, just to give him his dues!

[Mull]

Reading back, it seems nobody is making the crucial distinction between farmers and landowners (apart from@kevinjohnsonmbe).
 
With regards to subsidies, the current system is not great.  But the idea of abolishing all agri-subsidies and letting the market sort itself out is terrible.  Nevermind the effects on those working in the industry and all us consumers, which would be unpredictable but almost certainly very painful, the real concern might be existential.  Twice in the last century Britain was nearly starved into submission, and these were at times when we had an empire and wealthy sympathetic ally to help us out.  If we don't subsidise our inefficient farming industry, we will have but a tiny fraction of the capacity to feed our cities if, for whatever reason, our ability to import food disappears.  This isn't a crazy could-never-happen scenario, it has been hundreds of years since we produced a net surplus of food.
 
We definitely need to sort out how we subsidise, both what and to whom.  But we'll still need to do it.  Proper custodianship is essential, and that will come with a hefty price-tag. 

Yes, custodianship will have to take place whether producing food or keeping the countryside accessible. It’s a bit simplistic from me as usual but I’d rather subsidise a food producing countryside than an army of rewilders who have no idea of what they are doing and destroying centuries of good work. Yes, subsidy system is flawed, as are the supermarkets, as is the benefit system, as is the banking system....


Just shoot the bloody badgers...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

9 minutes ago, Mull said:

centuries of good work

And that is where we will have to agree to disagree.....

[matelot]

1 hour ago, Richard 1234 said:

I don’t think it would make any difference to land prices. People with mortgages could not afford to sell. Outright owners wouldn’t care.

 

 

So if subsidies are cut land prices wouldn't fall? I think you need to go back to economics school....

[Mull]

And that is where we will have to agree to disagree.....

I’m not agreeing to anything Kev![emoji38]

To be honest I’m surprised at your take on this, the British isles have a pretty diverse country side, grass is great stuff, trees are ok to.

[matelot]

1 hour ago, WesD said:

So you think the farmers who own the land now would give it up or sell it at a loss or would they put the price of food up to cover loss of subsidy?!

 

We know Richard1234 is from a farming family. I'd guess you're also from a farming family?

 

It's almost amusing how farmers take money from the taxpayers' pocket and say they are doing it for the good of the taxpayer. Then instead of the farmers saying "thank you" to the taxpayer they repeatedly complain they aren't getting enough money. 

 

#vestedinterests 

[the village idiot]

6 minutes ago, Mull said:

 

 

I’m not agreeing to anything Kev!

To be honest I’m surprised at your take on this, the British isles have a pretty diverse country side, grass is great stuff, trees are ok to.

 

 

He's got you bang to rights there Kev. Argue your way out of that one!