Making the news today....

[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! 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, the village idiot said:

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

Peasy......!

 

He can't agree to disagree because he's insufficiently committed to his stance to believe that we will always disagree, he knows he'll come round when the light dawns....

 

Or, that he is only faking his disagreement because there's no point arguing with someone you agree with....

 

[Richard 1234]

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

For reason already stated I don’t think they will fall.
So again owners won’t care as they own it and will simply either stop producing or let it go wild (since they are all so rich they don’t need more money)
2 the uk is small and they are not making any more land that I can see.
3 all these immigrants need housing so it could get built on
4 prices would rise making your argument pointless anyway.
But it will cause yet more problems for tenant farmers as landowners wont want to accept less rent.

If you actually took in what I said you would see that I’m not against subsidies being scrapped! I just can’t see it working that’s all