BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Not my area of expertise, but I was told by a farmer that it wasn't allowed.briantrumpet said:
Can be done.TheBigBean said:
I think it is more than one season, because if you have arable, then you do a year of grass to replenish the soil, you can't graze it during that year.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?0 -
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?0 -
TheBigBean said:
Not my area of expertise, but I was told by a farmer that it wasn't allowed.briantrumpet said:
Can be done.TheBigBean said:
I think it is more than one season, because if you have arable, then you do a year of grass to replenish the soil, you can't graze it during that year.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
Ah, maybe one of the conditions of subsidies/stewardship payments. It's physically very feasible though.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.0 -
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.0 -
Of course it can be done physically. It's an environmental rule I was told.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Not my area of expertise, but I was told by a farmer that it wasn't allowed.briantrumpet said:
Can be done.TheBigBean said:
I think it is more than one season, because if you have arable, then you do a year of grass to replenish the soil, you can't graze it during that year.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
Ah, maybe one of the conditions of subsidies/stewardship payments. It's physically very feasible though.1 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
as a rich country I do not see us facing food shortages we would just pay more (as we would if growing it ourselves) it is the poor countries who will not be able to buy it and face shortagesbriantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.0 -
why are you so sensitive?morstar said:
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.
SteveO is the lone voice for "pure globalisation" everybody else was either in favour of "fortress europe" or pulling up the drawbridge
Most posters probably have an unpopular view that attracts incoming fire. Try arguing for a small State and fiscal responsibility and see how much support you get0 -
-
Sorry, wasn’t aware I was.surrey_commuter said:
why are you so sensitive?morstar said:
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.
SteveO is the lone voice for "pure globalisation" everybody else was either in favour of "fortress europe" or pulling up the drawbridge
Most posters probably have an unpopular view that attracts incoming fire. Try arguing for a small State and fiscal responsibility and see how much support you get
I was merely agreeing with Brian that the prevailing Cakestop wisdom is a balanced economy is a redundant concept in a global age.0 -
I think you might be confusing things a bit - do you think most pro-EU people thought Europe shouldn't trade with the rest of the world?surrey_commuter said:
why are you so sensitive?morstar said:
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.
SteveO is the lone voice for "pure globalisation" everybody else was either in favour of "fortress europe" or pulling up the drawbridge
Most posters probably have an unpopular view that attracts incoming fire. Try arguing for a small State and fiscal responsibility and see how much support you get0 -
Otoh if we could get equally lousy results by halving their pay, should we?rick_chasey said:
If the solution was double everyone in the FCA's pay, would you be up for it? As that is a fundamental issue with the regulator. Anyone, who is half decent can earn double elsewhere for half the grief.Dorset_Boy said:
I only have experience of the FCA and its predecessors. I do think the FCA could be fixed, but to do so requires the FCA to be reincarnated first, and a wholesale attitude shift needs to occur.Jezyboy said:
In your opinion is it possible to fix the regulators?Dorset_Boy said:
Because the likes of Andrew Bailey were heading up one of the 2 financial regulators, along with a bunch of other incompetent senior managers.surrey_commuter said:
I know my question will be judged by my past comments but as I don't know anything about this area it is genuine.Stevo_666 said:
Has the EU actually cut any of it? I haven't heard.rjsterry said:
You mean the red tape that the EU was already reviewing last September?Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, the bonfire of the EU red tape is happening in the insurance sector whether you like it or not:
https://gov.uk/government/news/uk-slashes-red-tape-through-bold-reforms-to-insurance-sector-regulation
Sovereignty in action again
SOVWINTY!
It's pretty basic stuff that we should make the rules a best fit for us rather than accept a compromise for 27/28 different parties.
Anyhow, its just one example of what will be many over the coming years. I'm sure the EU will understand as they like making decisions and being in control - which is just sovereignty on a different level.
If these regs were so onerous and bad for the UK why were the reforms not ready to be implemented at one minute past midnight when we exited the EU?
It needs to stop being so incredibly arrogant, and stop being a bully.
It needs to listen and hear the businesses it is supposed to regulate.
When it consults, it must be willing to change its mind.
It must recognise that big is far from beautiful and small businesses should not be bullied.
It must be willing to listen when reports of fraud and mal-practice are reported to it and act there and then, not ignore those reports until the horse has bolted.
Senior mangement must be held accountable for their failings, and not rewarded for their failings with promotions such as those given to Bailey.
It must accept that it is accountable to Parliament.
It needs to listen to the industry about how to fix the broken compensation scheme, and accept that the public should bear some of that cost if they want to be protected by it. It has cloth ears on this.
It needs to have some senior managers with experience of the areas they are regulating.
It needs to have a good number of senior managers who understand small businesses.
It needs to move from London.
There are some very good people who work for the FCA, but god, some of the senior management are and have of the years been despicable.
I think the view is that autarky isn't a balenced economy.morstar said:
Sorry, wasn’t aware I was.surrey_commuter said:
why are you so sensitive?morstar said:
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.
SteveO is the lone voice for "pure globalisation" everybody else was either in favour of "fortress europe" or pulling up the drawbridge
Most posters probably have an unpopular view that attracts incoming fire. Try arguing for a small State and fiscal responsibility and see how much support you get
I was merely agreeing with Brian that the prevailing Cakestop wisdom is a balanced economy is a redundant concept in a global age.
Given the Corn Laws were in the 1800s this debate has been going a lot longer than the past 80 years.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
as a rich country I do not see us facing food shortages we would just pay more (as we would if growing it ourselves) it is the poor countries who will not be able to buy it and face shortagesbriantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Do you think it might be justifiable then, morally, to use subsidies, to try to reduce the loss of viable-if-marginal land (in world terms) so that rich countries aren't 'stealing' food from ones who aren't as rich?0 -
Call me sensitiveJezyboy said:
Otoh if we could get equally lousy results by halving their pay, should we?rick_chasey said:
If the solution was double everyone in the FCA's pay, would you be up for it? As that is a fundamental issue with the regulator. Anyone, who is half decent can earn double elsewhere for half the grief.Dorset_Boy said:
I only have experience of the FCA and its predecessors. I do think the FCA could be fixed, but to do so requires the FCA to be reincarnated first, and a wholesale attitude shift needs to occur.Jezyboy said:
In your opinion is it possible to fix the regulators?Dorset_Boy said:
Because the likes of Andrew Bailey were heading up one of the 2 financial regulators, along with a bunch of other incompetent senior managers.surrey_commuter said:
I know my question will be judged by my past comments but as I don't know anything about this area it is genuine.Stevo_666 said:
Has the EU actually cut any of it? I haven't heard.rjsterry said:
You mean the red tape that the EU was already reviewing last September?Stevo_666 said:Anyhow, the bonfire of the EU red tape is happening in the insurance sector whether you like it or not:
https://gov.uk/government/news/uk-slashes-red-tape-through-bold-reforms-to-insurance-sector-regulation
Sovereignty in action again
SOVWINTY!
It's pretty basic stuff that we should make the rules a best fit for us rather than accept a compromise for 27/28 different parties.
Anyhow, its just one example of what will be many over the coming years. I'm sure the EU will understand as they like making decisions and being in control - which is just sovereignty on a different level.
If these regs were so onerous and bad for the UK why were the reforms not ready to be implemented at one minute past midnight when we exited the EU?
It needs to stop being so incredibly arrogant, and stop being a bully.
It needs to listen and hear the businesses it is supposed to regulate.
When it consults, it must be willing to change its mind.
It must recognise that big is far from beautiful and small businesses should not be bullied.
It must be willing to listen when reports of fraud and mal-practice are reported to it and act there and then, not ignore those reports until the horse has bolted.
Senior mangement must be held accountable for their failings, and not rewarded for their failings with promotions such as those given to Bailey.
It must accept that it is accountable to Parliament.
It needs to listen to the industry about how to fix the broken compensation scheme, and accept that the public should bear some of that cost if they want to be protected by it. It has cloth ears on this.
It needs to have some senior managers with experience of the areas they are regulating.
It needs to have a good number of senior managers who understand small businesses.
It needs to move from London.
There are some very good people who work for the FCA, but god, some of the senior management are and have of the years been despicable.
I think the view is that autarky isn't a balenced economy.morstar said:
Sorry, wasn’t aware I was.surrey_commuter said:
why are you so sensitive?morstar said:
I’m with you in that I think some level of self sufficiency is part of a balanced economy.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Just get shot down for anything that isn’t pure globalisation though.
SteveO is the lone voice for "pure globalisation" everybody else was either in favour of "fortress europe" or pulling up the drawbridge
Most posters probably have an unpopular view that attracts incoming fire. Try arguing for a small State and fiscal responsibility and see how much support you get
I was merely agreeing with Brian that the prevailing Cakestop wisdom is a balanced economy is a redundant concept in a global age.
Given the Corn Laws were in the 1800s this debate has been going a lot longer than the past 80 years.
but…
I have never argued for Autarky. But it is the reply that always comes back.
Balance doesn’t mean self sufficiency.0 -
You're a sensitive snowflake 😛.
For what it's worth I have no clue to what extent this island can be self sufficient with food, particularly if we want a varied diet.
0 -
I don’t think we can be.
I do find actively choosing to turn away from what food production capability we do have strange.
But I just believe the more thriving sectors we have, the more robust the economy when faced with stressors.
I mean the last two years has thrown a few curve balls.0 -
If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
0 -
I also believe the more vibrant sectors we have, the more productive the workforce.0
-
Nationalistic worries about "self sufficiency" cost money.
You're better off earning all the money to begin with. Then you can afford whatever the F you want.
3 jabs before the poor world has had any? No problem, you're a rich country!
Massive outlay for renovating your entire energy system to move off hydrocarbons. No problem, you're rich!0 -
morstar said:
I don’t think we can be.
I do find actively choosing to turn away from what food production capability we do have strange.
But I just believe the more thriving sectors we have, the more robust the economy when faced with stressors.
I mean the last two years has thrown a few curve balls.
I'm certainly not arguing for self-sufficiency, just that allowing productive land and the skills needed to produce food from it to disappear because of temporarily easy & cheap availability from other parts of the planet (which might be prone to sudden shocks, and which won't prioritise the UK in times of shortage), might not be the best policy in the long term.
Food security might need a different mindset from ballpoint pens or KY Jelly. Or even bikes. With climate change, and now we know that armed conflict in Europe isn't impossible, free markets might not be the whole answer.1 -
Whenever people say balenced economy I do assume that they mean a more even spread of wealth in the regions.rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.0 -
Nobody is arguing for self sufficiency.rick_chasey said:Nationalistic worries about "self sufficiency" cost money.
You're better off earning all the money to begin with. Then you can afford whatever the F you want.
3 jabs before the poor world has had any? No problem, you're a rich country!
Massive outlay for renovating your entire energy system to move off hydrocarbons. No problem, you're rich!0 -
Interesting.Jezyboy said:
Whenever people say balenced economy I do assume that they mean a more even spread of wealth in the regions.rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
I think a balanced economy is one with a spread of vibrant sectors. Less poverty would be a natural outcome of that.
I don’t mean just spreading money about. I agree others may but would think they’re few and far between.0 -
morstar said:
Nobody is arguing for self sufficiency.rick_chasey said:Nationalistic worries about "self sufficiency" cost money.
You're better off earning all the money to begin with. Then you can afford whatever the F you want.
3 jabs before the poor world has had any? No problem, you're a rich country!
Massive outlay for renovating your entire energy system to move off hydrocarbons. No problem, you're rich!
I'm not sure where this strawman has come from. It's a completely different argument from the point I was making.
Food (and energy) resilience ought to be part of long-term thinking, and shutting down a large part of a viable sector because of temporarily cheap imports (there might be an analogy with Russian gas, and the West's thus not pursuing closer-to-home alternatives, whether it's mini nukes or renewables) doesn't seem like a good idea in an uncertain world.0 -
Why do you think we have so many working poor?rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
Skilled jobs raise living standards. Not all skilled jobs involve sitting down or academic skills.0 -
I think it goes,morstar said:
Interesting.Jezyboy said:
Whenever people say balenced economy I do assume that they mean a more even spread of wealth in the regions.rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
I think a balanced economy is one with a spread of vibrant sectors. Less poverty would be a natural outcome of that.
I don’t mean just spreading money about. I agree others may but would think they’re few and far between.
Balenced economy, more high quality jobs that aren't simply finance in city of London, more wealth in regions.
The (more) even spread is a beneficial result of a balanced economy.0 -
M
UK is halfway to America and the population consistently refuse to vote for political parties who raise the floor of wealth in the country.morstar said:
Why do you think we have so many working poor?rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
Skilled jobs raise living standards. Not all skilled jobs involve sitting down or academic skills.
Basically.
👍🏻
Universities are part of your solution not the problem.
0 -
Not really. No need to go to university for non-academic work. Non-academic work still needs to be done. Unskilled work will always be poorly paid.rick_chasey said:M
UK is halfway to America and the population consistently refuse to vote for political parties who raise the floor of wealth in the country.morstar said:
Why do you think we have so many working poor?rick_chasey said:If the whole country was richer and we didn't have a whole load of working poor, the increase in food prices wouldn't be a problem.
The issue is the UK has a load of poor people who will struggle with the increase in prices, not that there is not enough food to go around.
Skilled jobs raise living standards. Not all skilled jobs involve sitting down or academic skills.
Basically.
👍🏻
Universities are part of your solution not the problem.
Also, a lot of skilled jobs still pay under the average salary.
Increasing wages will add to costs which will add to inflation.
It is a conundrum.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
as a rich country I do not see us facing food shortages we would just pay more (as we would if growing it ourselves) it is the poor countries who will not be able to buy it and face shortagesbriantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Do you think it might be justifiable then, morally, to use subsidies, to try to reduce the loss of viable-if-marginal land (in world terms) so that rich countries aren't 'stealing' food from ones who aren't as rich?
If I had £4bn pa to help feed the needy of the world I would not hand it out to UK farmers, I would use it to improve the productivity of farmers in poor countries.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
as a rich country I do not see us facing food shortages we would just pay more (as we would if growing it ourselves) it is the poor countries who will not be able to buy it and face shortagesbriantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
there will be food on the table, it will just cost more. Our food prices are related to intl prices so the price wouldnot fall because it was grown in Kent rather than Francebriantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You also can't grow food on land used to graze cows.Pross said:"Ireland’s agriculture minister Charlie McConalogue told RTE that farmers, many dairy and beef producers, should consider growing grain this year. He said the country imports 60% of its grain."
I'm no farming export but I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as just switching to using your fields for a different crop.
Quite so (well, not the same season). It's one of the reasons that you have to play the long game with agriculture - the lead times are such that if there's suddenly a catastrophic shortage, it's too late to do anything much about it. And if you've lost a sizeable proportion of your viable farming land as a long term asset, that's an even longer game to turn around.
The post-WW2 ear was one in which UK agriculture was revolutionised, not just by increasing mechanisation, but also long-term strategies such as draining marginal land and enlarging fields (aka 'ripping out hedgerows') to make farming economic (albeit via subsidies in many cases) over a much wider area.
What price, having food on the table? Does it seem slightly more precarious now?
But the smooth supply from world trade does look a little less assured now, I think you'd have to agree. And that, in a nutshell, is why I think that food supply, in particular, needs a more nuanced approach than world/free markets will provide. The past 80 years have been an anomaly, in historical terms.
Do you think it might be justifiable then, morally, to use subsidies, to try to reduce the loss of viable-if-marginal land (in world terms) so that rich countries aren't 'stealing' food from ones who aren't as rich?
If I had £4bn pa to spend on alleviating food poverty in the UK I would not give it to UK farmers, I would give it to charities operating in those areas.1
