“As I cleverly tweeted last week “; Did Eton not hammer into you that “self praise is no recommendation”? If not, you must ask for your money back. You seem to suggest something like the reimposition of the Corn Laws, solely to protect the most pampered minority this country has ever known, Landowners and Farmers. Farm land in Wiltshire currently sells for about £9,000 per acre. These people do not need subsidies in any form whatsoever. They are an obscenity left over from the dreadful EU and its CAP. Farming, thanks to mechanisation hardly employs anyone. Our farming standards are not a gold standard, as revealed by the fiasco over Mad Cow Disease, followed by Foot and Mouth. Most of the countryside is a ‘chemical desert’ devoid of wildlife. The rapacious greed of Landowners/Farmers have made ‘Silent Spring’ almost inevitable. Food security is another old canard, and the scenes that are daily enacted in our Slaughterhouses make even Auschwitz, benign by comparison. In fact so bad is that, we prefer to hide behind the French word, Abattoir! Sadly, many of us adore Roast Beef, but in all frankness, are totally indifferent as to where it comes from.
“You seem to suggest something like the reimposition of the Corn Laws, solely to protect the most pampered minority this country has ever known, Landowners and Farmers.”
Spot on…time those farming subsidies were spent to get steel and shipbuilding in the UK going again…and better housing and proper vocational education.
Farmers have had tens of billions of pounds over the years to protect ’em from the world market…
Sir James Dyson, one our most successful businessmen is reported to have invested in 33,0000 acres or 51 square miles of England.This also brings with it enormous IHT benefits. Yet he is a passionate believer in Farm Subsidies! A classic case of “I’m worth it”. No doubt there is a case to subsidise some ‘farmers’, but I am not convinced. They either fall into the mega rich bracket, such as Dyson and clearly don’t need it, or they are so small that what they are doing is vocational, and why should we indulge them? The economic chaos caused by Chinese Death Flu gives us an ideal opportunity to decide who to help and who not to. As one of the richest groups in the country is seems bonkers to keep “stuffing their mouths with gold”. (apologies to the late N Bevan MP).
Simon Adams
3 years ago
Good article. The agriculture bill sounds positive. I didn’t hear about it, as I guess the media are too busy screaming about graphs that I’ve given up on most of them.
With trade deals we should certainly ban the likes of food produced with routine hormone and antibiotic use.
I still don’t know how you stop cruelly produced cheap meat flooding places where labelling makes no difference, such as markets, restaurants, fast food etc. Not only does that undercut british producers, it leaves us very vulnerable in a crisis or war once our low end mass producers have gone out of business.
Halal slaughter, which has become ubiquitous for economic reasons, must be stopped. I mean actually stopped – it is, after all, inhumane and illegal but, like other practices associated with this particular religion, outside law enforcement in the UK.
“With trade deals we should certainly ban the likes of food produced with routine hormone and antibiotic use.”
So no trade deal then with the US…
davidtncl
3 years ago
Corn laws V2, Beef laws, basically. Protectionist twaddle. Arguing for regulatory barriers is anti free choice, anti consumer stuff designed to make farmers richer at the expense of the poor.
He wants billions of pounds to keep flowing to his farmer voters…time those billions were hosed over the Northern industrial towns…
milton.travesty
3 years ago
Interesting words but what are we after? If I’m reading this correctly:
* Impose environmental standards via the WTO so we can: * Impose tariffs based on environmental and animal rights reasons
Which then brings us to the impact of:
* Raising food prices * Trading “something” for the political weight of imposing something at the WTO.
A lot of this seems to hinge on the US election result this year because if Trump wins again then its plausible that the WTO isn’t going to mean much anymore. On top of that a lot of this appears to hinge upon us being able to agree deals with countries like the US as well as influence them. Given that agri is high up on the US’s interests we’re going to need something to trade to win that fight which brings us back around to that big massive elephant in the room of what will _actually_ pay for Brexit.
Someone at some point is going to have to choose a poison and if we keep hot potatoing then we’ll just end up back at austerity where an underpaid council worker has to make the choice about what actually gets cut. The Conservatives have a majority of 80 so they should be able to boldly pick the losers yet all I hear is “not the….” and “not the…..”. This being a “not the farmers” article.
Well you have five years to work it out I guess…
David Brown
3 years ago
Much the same arguments were made about wheat, but the Corn Laws were still repealed, and eventually British wheat farmers grew richer as a result of free trade.
Paul Ridley-Smith
3 years ago
There’s always someone making these sorts of arguments: “I believe in and support free trade BUT” (and we know that whatever comes before the BUT is weakly held) and then pick a range of reasons that reflect whatever special interest or bias is held. More honest to say that I believe in free trade when it suits me and not when when it doesn’t. The real fear here is that agricultural industries outside of the UK can produce sufficiently comparable products cheaper than the UK. Non-tariff trade barriers to deny consumers these products, or raise the price of them, hurt lower income people. Be comforted that those with means can still buy premium local……
andy9
3 years ago
The Coronavirus situation raises another dimension to this issue, on the vulnerability created when nations lose essential industries and supply chains.
When a nation allows itself to become dependent on the import of essential goods and products, it is highly vulnerable to any external events which cause an interruption. At which point, the costs and impacts of that interruption come into sharp focus and the benefits of those modest cost savings seem rather inconsequential by comparison.
There is some value in the security provided by producing essential goods domestically.
sv cop
3 years ago
A British business will rob you blind, if given half a chance, in the same way as Chinese or US one will. Probably worse. The only way to keep the whole bunch of crooks in check is competition. So this piece and the bill is deluded nonsense.
simon taylor
3 years ago
Thoughtful and interesting article, wish Danny Kruger was my MP. Food security is key to sovereignty, and has been much ignored by globalist elites.
Danny K…reliant on farmer voters determined to keep soaking up cash from poorer voters….
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
A thoughtful article that deserves a considered response. I’m largely supportive of Danny’s arguments but would like to offer a few ideas. First, Danny, Danny, Danny, can we give the tired old chlorine-washed chicken thing a rest? First, the European food safety authority says it’s completely safe to eat, just like the chlorine-washed fruit and veg we import from the EU without a murmur from anyone. Second, I realise there is a supposed animal welfare issue but, since 5/6ths of US chicken production no longer uses chlorine washing, I don’t suppose much will be coming our way. If it does, proper labelling is the appropriate response. (Hormone-fed beef, different thing entirely.) Now, to more substantive things. Food security is very important but there is no chance that British farmers and fishermen can supply 100% of our food requirements, either in the near future or, indeed, ever. It’s also not actually secure to have all one’s eggs in the UK-produced basket. We need alternatives in the event of rare but not impossible events such as failed harvests etc. Given the above, food imports are not a threat to UK producers of high-quality food, especially with the consumer ever more conscious of quality, provenance and food miles. Imports may be of “lower” quality but this certainly doesn’t mean poor quality. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the large quantities of Irish beef that you will find in the Tesco meat aisles, not to mention in pies and pasties from UK producers big and small, and UK producers can’t supply all that demand in any case. However, Brexit now allows us to, for example, replace Irish beef with cheaper but equally good Argentinian or US beef. That will help the consumer without damaging UK farmers. (I note that this article was written before today’s announcement that we are, regrettably, planning to keep tariffs in the agriculture sector.) Danny deals well with Mr Zeichner’s objections to the Agriculture Bill. The poor diet of the disadvantaged has little to do with the cost of food and much more to do with the spending priorities of the people in question. There is also the difficulty of defining what “lower” means in the context of regulations forbidding the import of food produced to lower standards. While it may be true that the objective of food policy should not be ever-cheaper food, there is no reason why the objective should instead be to keep food prices needlessly high. By removing tariffs on agricultural imports, price competition between EU and non-EU exporters to the UK will act to reduce prices. There is no reason to think EU producers would suddenly reduce their quality standards along with their prices. British farmers have shown themselves to be innovative, creative and industrious, as well as committed to high-quality food and environmental practices. They are well able to cope with competition from overseas and we should be encouraging them to do so, trusting in British consumers to value their efforts and their produce.
Cogently put, but should we be subsidising them? Surely not all of them? My charming neighbour who farms 16,000 acres (25 square miles) certainly doesn’t need subsidy, nor does HM the Queen. Until this absurd situation is resolved there will be little sympathy for farmers. It is all rather reminiscent of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the sterling work of the late Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex.
George Wells
3 years ago
We don’t have the third cheapest food in the world. Cheaper than Brazil?
If your facts are wrong, what price your opinions? There’s too much journalism from people who have no feel for numbers or the tremendous differences across the world. And yes, Mark Corby, and all others making similar points, our agricultural policy is the poor subsidising the rich and there’s too much of that too.
“As I cleverly tweeted last week “; Did Eton not hammer into you that “self praise is no recommendation”? If not, you must ask for your money back.
You seem to suggest something like the reimposition of the Corn Laws, solely to protect the most pampered minority this country has ever known, Landowners and Farmers.
Farm land in Wiltshire currently sells for about
£9,000 per acre. These people do not need subsidies in any form whatsoever. They are an obscenity left over from the dreadful EU and its
CAP.
Farming, thanks to mechanisation hardly employs anyone. Our farming standards are not a gold standard, as revealed by the fiasco over Mad Cow Disease, followed by Foot and Mouth. Most of the countryside is a ‘chemical desert’ devoid of wildlife. The rapacious greed of Landowners/Farmers have made
‘Silent Spring’ almost inevitable.
Food security is another old canard, and the scenes that are daily enacted in our Slaughterhouses make even Auschwitz, benign by comparison. In fact so bad is that, we prefer to hide behind the French word, Abattoir!
Sadly, many of us adore Roast Beef, but in all frankness, are totally indifferent as to where it comes from.
And don’t forget the cynical con that is the Red Tractor scheme.
“You seem to suggest something like the reimposition of the Corn Laws, solely to protect the most pampered minority this country has ever known, Landowners and Farmers.”
Spot on…time those farming subsidies were spent to get steel and shipbuilding in the UK going again…and better housing and proper vocational education.
Farmers have had tens of billions of pounds over the years to protect ’em from the world market…
Sir James Dyson, one our most successful businessmen is reported to have invested in 33,0000 acres or 51 square miles of England.This also brings with it enormous IHT benefits.
Yet he is a passionate believer in Farm Subsidies! A classic case of “I’m worth it”.
No doubt there is a case to subsidise some ‘farmers’, but I am not convinced.
They either fall into the mega rich bracket, such as Dyson and clearly don’t need it, or they are so small that what they are doing is vocational, and why should we indulge them?
The economic chaos caused by Chinese Death Flu gives us an ideal opportunity to decide who to help and who not to.
As one of the richest groups in the country is seems bonkers to keep “stuffing their mouths with gold”.
(apologies to the late N Bevan MP).
Good article. The agriculture bill sounds positive. I didn’t hear about it, as I guess the media are too busy screaming about graphs that I’ve given up on most of them.
With trade deals we should certainly ban the likes of food produced with routine hormone and antibiotic use.
I still don’t know how you stop cruelly produced cheap meat flooding places where labelling makes no difference, such as markets, restaurants, fast food etc. Not only does that undercut british producers, it leaves us very vulnerable in a crisis or war once our low end mass producers have gone out of business.
Halal slaughter, which has become ubiquitous for economic reasons, must be stopped. I mean actually stopped – it is, after all, inhumane and illegal but, like other practices associated with this particular religion, outside law enforcement in the UK.
At the very least, all meat should be labelled to show if it is halal/kosher.
“With trade deals we should certainly ban the likes of food produced with routine hormone and antibiotic use.”
So no trade deal then with the US…
Corn laws V2, Beef laws, basically. Protectionist twaddle. Arguing for regulatory barriers is anti free choice, anti consumer stuff designed to make farmers richer at the expense of the poor.
Nah, he’s the mouthpiece for his client group…that’s all..
Spoken like that rare beast, a Tory who is a true conservative. What a burst of sunshine.
He wants billions of pounds to keep flowing to his farmer voters…time those billions were hosed over the Northern industrial towns…
Interesting words but what are we after? If I’m reading this correctly:
* Impose environmental standards via the WTO so we can:
* Impose tariffs based on environmental and animal rights reasons
Which then brings us to the impact of:
* Raising food prices
* Trading “something” for the political weight of imposing something at the WTO.
A lot of this seems to hinge on the US election result this year because if Trump wins again then its plausible that the WTO isn’t going to mean much anymore.
On top of that a lot of this appears to hinge upon us being able to agree deals with countries like the US as well as influence them. Given that agri is high up on the US’s interests we’re going to need something to trade to win that fight which brings us back around to that big massive elephant in the room of what will _actually_ pay for Brexit.
Someone at some point is going to have to choose a poison and if we keep hot potatoing then we’ll just end up back at austerity where an underpaid council worker has to make the choice about what actually gets cut.
The Conservatives have a majority of 80 so they should be able to boldly pick the losers yet all I hear is “not the….” and “not the…..”. This being a “not the farmers” article.
Well you have five years to work it out I guess…
Much the same arguments were made about wheat, but the Corn Laws were still repealed, and eventually British wheat farmers grew richer as a result of free trade.
There’s always someone making these sorts of arguments: “I believe in and support free trade BUT” (and we know that whatever comes before the BUT is weakly held) and then pick a range of reasons that reflect whatever special interest or bias is held. More honest to say that I believe in free trade when it suits me and not when when it doesn’t. The real fear here is that agricultural industries outside of the UK can produce sufficiently comparable products cheaper than the UK. Non-tariff trade barriers to deny consumers these products, or raise the price of them, hurt lower income people. Be comforted that those with means can still buy premium local……
The Coronavirus situation raises another dimension to this issue, on the vulnerability created when nations lose essential industries and supply chains.
When a nation allows itself to become dependent on the import of essential goods and products, it is highly vulnerable to any external events which cause an interruption. At which point, the costs and impacts of that interruption come into sharp focus and the benefits of those modest cost savings seem rather inconsequential by comparison.
There is some value in the security provided by producing essential goods domestically.
A British business will rob you blind, if given half a chance, in the same way as Chinese or US one will. Probably worse. The only way to keep the whole bunch of crooks in check is competition. So this piece and the bill is deluded nonsense.
Thoughtful and interesting article, wish Danny Kruger was my MP. Food security is key to sovereignty, and has been much ignored by globalist elites.
Danny K…reliant on farmer voters determined to keep soaking up cash from poorer voters….
A thoughtful article that deserves a considered response. I’m largely supportive of Danny’s arguments but would like to offer a few ideas.
First, Danny, Danny, Danny, can we give the tired old chlorine-washed chicken thing a rest? First, the European food safety authority says it’s completely safe to eat, just like the chlorine-washed fruit and veg we import from the EU without a murmur from anyone. Second, I realise there is a supposed animal welfare issue but, since 5/6ths of US chicken production no longer uses chlorine washing, I don’t suppose much will be coming our way. If it does, proper labelling is the appropriate response. (Hormone-fed beef, different thing entirely.)
Now, to more substantive things. Food security is very important but there is no chance that British farmers and fishermen can supply 100% of our food requirements, either in the near future or, indeed, ever. It’s also not actually secure to have all one’s eggs in the UK-produced basket. We need alternatives in the event of rare but not impossible events such as failed harvests etc.
Given the above, food imports are not a threat to UK producers of high-quality food, especially with the consumer ever more conscious of quality, provenance and food miles. Imports may be of “lower” quality but this certainly doesn’t mean poor quality. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the large quantities of Irish beef that you will find in the Tesco meat aisles, not to mention in pies and pasties from UK producers big and small, and UK producers can’t supply all that demand in any case. However, Brexit now allows us to, for example, replace Irish beef with cheaper but equally good Argentinian or US beef. That will help the consumer without damaging UK farmers. (I note that this article was written before today’s announcement that we are, regrettably, planning to keep tariffs in the agriculture sector.)
Danny deals well with Mr Zeichner’s objections to the Agriculture Bill. The poor diet of the disadvantaged has little to do with the cost of food and much more to do with the spending priorities of the people in question. There is also the difficulty of defining what “lower” means in the context of regulations forbidding the import of food produced to lower standards.
While it may be true that the objective of food policy should not be ever-cheaper food, there is no reason why the objective should instead be to keep food prices needlessly high. By removing tariffs on agricultural imports, price competition between EU and non-EU exporters to the UK will act to reduce prices. There is no reason to think EU producers would suddenly reduce their quality standards along with their prices.
British farmers have shown themselves to be innovative, creative and industrious, as well as committed to high-quality food and environmental practices. They are well able to cope with competition from overseas and we should be encouraging them to do so, trusting in British consumers to value their efforts and their produce.
Cogently put, but should we be subsidising them?
Surely not all of them? My charming neighbour who farms 16,000 acres (25 square miles) certainly doesn’t need subsidy, nor does HM the Queen.
Until this absurd situation is resolved there will be little sympathy for farmers. It is all rather reminiscent of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the sterling work of the late Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex.
We don’t have the third cheapest food in the world. Cheaper than Brazil?
If your facts are wrong, what price your opinions?
There’s too much journalism from people who have no feel for numbers or the tremendous differences across the world.
And yes, Mark Corby, and all others making similar points, our agricultural policy is the poor subsidising the rich and there’s too much of that too.