kevinjohnsonmbe

Are you an BPS "opted-out" farmer / landowner Alec? Can't recall if you may have said that earlier in the thread and not sure if I'm reading it right here?

I agree with most of that. The only thing I would add is that unlike your RHI example if you stop receiving subsidies you still have to stick to all the rules so the complaints are genuine in that it's not a straight choice as compared to other countries. I'm not clear on that, appreciate if you could expand? I'm just shooting off the top of my head here, I'm thinking there will be aspects of HSE, Environmental, Protected species legislation for example that we are all bound by. There are additional, comprehensive and complex cross compliance regulations, requirements and reports attached to BPS eligibility. Are farmers obliged to satisfy the eligibility demands of BPS if they are NOT drawing down BPS funds?

[quote I mentioned earlier about the planting grants for woodlands and subsidies for Boimass timber/firewood. Are they ok as they suit u? There is all sorts of subsidies grants and incentives flying about for all sorts of businesses I take your point, it's a fair one. What I would add to the mix though is: planting grants don't provide any specific advantage to myself but RHI for biomass does. Subsidies are a carrot rather than stick approach. I installed a Biomass boiler for a number of reasons - personal desire to reduce CO2 footprint through lower dependence of fossil fuels and the volatility of fluctuations in the world market. There was a small cash incentive for installation and, at the time, the domestic tariff was some years off with many people believing it would never materialise. I went ahead anyway at reasonable personal expense. The "cash" to fund RHI payments was that which would have been paid by UKPLC to EU in fines for failing to reduce CO2. Hence, carrot rather than fine. I'd agree there are a broad range of "subsidies" flying around, it's only my opinion, but it seems to me, through those I speak to daily and that which I monitor on NFU websites and the media, that the biggest moaners are those that have the greatest degree of benefit from a broad range of financial and regulatory support. What really grates, and resulted in a recent, fairly energetic argument with a good friend was when farmers say they depend upon subsidies but then whine like billy-o about the regulations that are attached to receiving them. If I stop burning biomass, my RHI stops, simple really. You can't have it both ways - the subsidies are tied to actions which are intended to mitigate the environmental impact of agriculture as an industrial activity. No one, so far as I am aware, is compelled to draw down the subsidy - it's a choice. The consequence of that choice is compliance. I also struggle to reconcile how literally 10's, sometimes 100's of £1000's can be paid to farms which could be (many are) successful in their own right, but DLA/JSA/ESA, libraries, school crossing patrols, social care, NHS etc, etc, etc are all in decline. There is no threshold test to pay sub's to ag areas that would go-under without it as distinct from those that are doing very well and just getting more cash. Perhaps means testing would be a fairer way?

Yes, however, in my haste, I perhaps omitted to mention Class Q GPDO 2015 which is what I was referring to....

Yes I do use Red (where appropriate) and yes woodlands are exempt inheritance tax. Does exampling a concession elsewhere in some way lessen the cumulative number of concessions in ag sector?

Going to take a minute or 2 to read all the replies.... Anybody see the BBC2 Newsnight piece last night? I particularly liked the guy from the Lakes, he has a small farm which never has, nor will be profitable and he relies heavily upon subsidy. He'd never give it up though because it's his love, his life, his passion etc (my paraphrase.) If only I could find a way of getting someone else to pay for my lifestyle hobby, now that would be grand!

Just answer these 2 likely lads first, then get back to catching up with the rest of the thread..... I thought it would get round to banking and bale-outs... Kind of inevitable. Whilst being as far removed from supporting chair shiners as a person could probably be, I just want to highlight that financial services contributes to the UK economy something like: employing over 7% of the UK workforce, producing nearly 12% of total economic output, contributing £66bn in taxes and generating a trade surplus of £72bn. That there is too big a chunk of contribution to UK GDP to lose and thus the bale out. + of course, that particular bale-out resulted in public ownership of large parts of the establishments baled out and significant regulatory changes to operating procedure. What part of any farm that has ongoing subsidy now belongs to the public estate? Enjoyed that..... Was it the SNP party conference after show? The list isn't endless Mr E, but it IS a good deal longer for those claiming ag subsidy than it is for most others: Rebated diesel, reduced council tax, excemption from capital gain tax, exemption from business rates, exemptions from planning regs to name but a few.....

Some inconsistent chain filing issues going on there!

Any chance of a pic? Sounds good!!

+/- 50% EU budget given over to CAP You'd think that, as a policy and supported by so much cash, it would result in EU wide improvements and efficiencies leading to economic growth in the Ag sector over the decades? Maybe the figures are suppressed by abnormal growth in other sectors which are causing a reduced % share for Ag.... Oh, no, that's not the case... (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=GB-EU)

Despite +/- 50% of total EU expenditure on CAP, Ag delivers no more than 0.7% of UK GDP. You don't need a doctorate in Economics to spot the policy deficiency in that delta!

Totally agree! It should be local and it should be seasonal. If only we could break away from a big beast that forbids and prevents policy incentives to support that..... A seemingly small issue (in isolation) but with huge down stream (!) implications, albeit paling into insignificance in the broader environmental negatives..... Grants were paid to grub out upland scrub and grants are reduced if the number of trees per acre exceeds predetermined maximum.... Result.... Soil erosion, run off and flash flooding resulting in huge expense downstream. Solution? Pay more grants to block up rivers..... You couldn't make it up!! It's time we took a long hard look at the sector and stopped trying to kidd on that farming and environmental / conservation issues make for good bed fellows.

Maybe / maybe yes... Not a directly comparable socio / geographical comparison. But I'm not sure that's the point. The agricultural business model is what might be exampled - improved efficiency, output, supply chain and VfM. Question: How can an unsubsidised industry export 1/2 way around the world and deliver quality matched product which out performs local, subsidised product? It's almost embarrassing! Surely?

Please...... Please...... Please..... Read the link on page 1: https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/liberating-farming-from-the-cap Land prices are so high BECAUSE of subsidy! NZ is a perfect example of how it COULD / SHOULD be done AFTER subsidy!

Valiant effort to bring us back on track Paul!! :thumb up: :thumb up:

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.

Take a wild stab in the dark..... How about page 2:

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

Slam-dunk! No further witnesses. The case for the prosecution rests M'Lord.

No chap, and as you identify in your statement - idea, reality and degree are entirely subjective.... I'd suggest, what is subsidised, and as Alec pointed out, that which is flawed, is that you don't even have to own the land to own the subsidy rights - they can and are freely traded, which results in: (1) those working the land not always being those in receipt of the subsidy and (2) where inefficient and ineffective practices are deployed, the subsidy results in a continuum of that inefficiency rather than leading to price reductions at the counter. The argument you put forward is an old and tired example of "if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it is true." For Flatyre, Think of a local, hard done by farmer, then run their details through this little baby to see how much subsidy they get: Defra, UK - CAP Payments Search It's quite enlightening, I've found some of those most vocal in their pleading poverty are the most unsettled by the knowledge that their subsidy income is public knowledge. Public money = public knowledge. Enjoy!! You could also try: United Kingdom | FarmSubsidy.org I'm sure you will be STAGGERED by the level of public money that is paid, and in many cases where it is paid to....

Try this: https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/liberating-farming-from-the-cap

I'd be less grumpy about the skewed propaganda disseminated by the NFU if one or the other were true. You can't have Farmer Giles, 1930's style, bumbling around all hours achieving not much and claiming to be a custodian of the countryside whilst simultaneously advancing GM, badger culling, intensive farming, neonic's, etc, etc, etc... The 2 just don't belong together but both are actively propagated by the NFU. (IMHO)

I've only very briefly skim read it, but you may be in direct contradiction of the theories proposed by the NFU's former chief economist that I linked above.... Just saying.... You may be right and he may be wrong.... I'll read it in full and at leisure tomorrow

(1) I don't have the figures to hand but, from memory, I recall the level of grant support available to farming as compared to forestry, as each sector is measured by contribution to UK GDP is grossly disproportionate in favour of ag. I guess I could, if pressed, look the figures up again..... But not tonight! (2) £350 squillion/second to be saved! Or at least that's what I voted for.... Must have been true, it was in a UKIP leaflet!