BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Seems we need to decide exactly what it is we want to save before we work out how. Converting UK farming into high tech agribusiness might save businesses but would utterly transform the landscape, flora and fauna of the country.rick_chasey said:
I don’t understand why this line of argument is brought out when I’m involved. It has nothing to do with it -( I had a wheat farm that my garden backed out on and he’d climb into our gardens and bang on the windows and shout for reasons I never understood as a kid. So no)webboo said:How many farmers do you know Rick or people connected to it. Have you ever met any estate owners. These people generally seem to views at odds with yours.
I’d suspect the estate owners are not in favour of losing subsidies, that would make sense.
No one here can explain the flat lining of productivity in the Uk versus the rest of the western world so let’s not pretend that the people disagreeing with me are all over the issue either.
If I were king for a day I’d cut out subsidies for subsidies sake. If you can’t make money doing what you’re doing without government hand outs, cya later.
I’d heavily subsidies farm investments in agri tech - doubly so if it’s sustainable.
More money for research too - UK has some world leading unis who are chomping at the bit for money. That’s certainly a big factor in the Dutch success.
What would your solutions be? Prop it up as it gets more and more uncompetitive?
And whoever mentioned autarky - this is about saving an industry and have it be competitive. It’s not about self reliance. It needs to be able to compete with the rest of the world on its own two feet or it will die off.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Seems we need to decide exactly what it is we want to save before we work out how. Converting UK farming into high tech agribusiness might save businesses but would utterly transform the landscape, flora and fauna of the country.rick_chasey said:
I don’t understand why this line of argument is brought out when I’m involved. It has nothing to do with it -( I had a wheat farm that my garden backed out on and he’d climb into our gardens and bang on the windows and shout for reasons I never understood as a kid. So no)webboo said:How many farmers do you know Rick or people connected to it. Have you ever met any estate owners. These people generally seem to views at odds with yours.
I’d suspect the estate owners are not in favour of losing subsidies, that would make sense.
No one here can explain the flat lining of productivity in the Uk versus the rest of the western world so let’s not pretend that the people disagreeing with me are all over the issue either.
If I were king for a day I’d cut out subsidies for subsidies sake. If you can’t make money doing what you’re doing without government hand outs, cya later.
I’d heavily subsidies farm investments in agri tech - doubly so if it’s sustainable.
More money for research too - UK has some world leading unis who are chomping at the bit for money. That’s certainly a big factor in the Dutch success.
What would your solutions be? Prop it up as it gets more and more uncompetitive?
And whoever mentioned autarky - this is about saving an industry and have it be competitive. It’s not about self reliance. It needs to be able to compete with the rest of the world on its own two feet or it will die off.
I'm really not sure why I'm trying. RC's two divergent model systems are either low-cost prairie, where pretty much anything goes, or highly intensive Dutch systems on universally fertile soils. I have little to no confidence he has any idea how UK agriculture has evolved around the landscape it inhabits, or why our landscape might continue to influence agricultural practices.
I think he is as expert in UK agriculture as John is in warfare in Ukraine.1 -
-
Round Cumbria farms are getting bigger as machines are meaning that the same owner and a couple of contractors if they put the work in can essentially manage 4 times the land that they used to. Hill farmers were out competing lowland farmers at auction for land as their higher subsidies let the do this. As always in life it is very hard for any government to put in place a farming subsidy that is just and fair across the country or even Cumbria it would seem.0
-
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.0 -
Remarkable you put farming on a par with transport, education and health.
I mean, if that's the case, there's *even more* case for reform.0 -
I blame the remoaners
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I wonder if they have a contingency plan in case the tailback reaches the M25tailwindhome said:0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.
Seriously? Even as a musician, I'd suggest that's a weird comparison.
The Russia thing has brought things into sharper focus: food, energy. If they can grab a large part of the world's supplies of both, they've got a lot of, er, power, and can destabilise economies.
Which would you rather survive without (or experience a shortage of), food, or the arts?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Remarkable you put farming on a par with transport, education and health.
I mean, if that's the case, there's *even more* case for reform.
Why? Is food a luxury? Is having some control over our environment optional?
You're sounding like a Brexiteer, claiming that because the old system is flawed, throwing out the old system entirely is bound to be better.
Of course, as with the EU, the system is far from perfect (see my comment to SC about large subsidies going to large businesses), but I don't think it's unreasonable for subsidies to guide the direction farming should be moving in. If those goals are trying to ensure good food produced efficiently to high standards, while increasingly improving environmental standards, I think that would be a good start.0 -
I just don't see a need for being self-sufficient.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.
Seriously? Even as a musician, I'd suggest that's a weird comparison.
The Russia thing has brought things into sharper focus: food, energy. If they can grab a large part of the world's supplies of both, they've got a lot of, er, power, and can destabilise economies.
Which would you rather survive without (or experience a shortage of), food, or the arts?
The comparison with the arts is a based upon the ruling classes looking after their own and things that they like doing0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I just don't see a need for being self-sufficient.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.
Seriously? Even as a musician, I'd suggest that's a weird comparison.
The Russia thing has brought things into sharper focus: food, energy. If they can grab a large part of the world's supplies of both, they've got a lot of, er, power, and can destabilise economies.
Which would you rather survive without (or experience a shortage of), food, or the arts?
The comparison with the arts is a based upon the ruling classes looking after their own and things that they like doing
This is not about being self-sufficient (though i do think it's a good idea to have adequate home-grown produce to weather the vagaries of international food shortages). It's about being able to have some degree of influence not only on a vital resource, but also on the actual physical shape of the country and its environment.
I think your analogy with the arts is just bizarre.0 -
more bizarre than your comparison with Health and education?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I just don't see a need for being self-sufficient.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.
Seriously? Even as a musician, I'd suggest that's a weird comparison.
The Russia thing has brought things into sharper focus: food, energy. If they can grab a large part of the world's supplies of both, they've got a lot of, er, power, and can destabilise economies.
Which would you rather survive without (or experience a shortage of), food, or the arts?
The comparison with the arts is a based upon the ruling classes looking after their own and things that they like doing
This is not about being self-sufficient (though i do think it's a good idea to have adequate home-grown produce to weather the vagaries of international food shortages). It's about being able to have some degree of influence not only on a vital resource, but also on the actual physical shape of the country and its environment.
I think your analogy with the arts is just bizarre.
If the ruling classes and their family and friends were not landowners how much subsidy do you think they would get?
Now let's consider opera and skateboarding, which one is liked by the ruling classes their family and friends and is their a correlation with which one gets the most funding?
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.0 -
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.0 -
I thought the entire industry was under threat post-Brexit?briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Remarkable you put farming on a par with transport, education and health.
I mean, if that's the case, there's *even more* case for reform.
Why? Is food a luxury? Is having some control over our environment optional?
You're sounding like a Brexiteer, claiming that because the old system is flawed, throwing out the old system entirely is bound to be better.
Of course, as with the EU, the system is far from perfect (see my comment to SC about large subsidies going to large businesses), but I don't think it's unreasonable for subsidies to guide the direction farming should be moving in. If those goals are trying to ensure good food produced efficiently to high standards, while increasingly improving environmental standards, I think that would be a good start.0 -
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild1 -
😂surrey_commuter said:
Do you really see farmers as being on a par with edu, transport and health?briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:So if all farmers are brassic and there is no money to be made why has the price of agricultural land outstripped house prices?
Maybe, just maybe the presence of massive subsidies has resulted in inefficient producers.
And yes I know farmers and the grants and subsidies they get would make your eyes bleed. They do such bizarre things that I have to sit down with pencil and paper and have a serious think about why they do it.
The way subsidies are divvied up is nuts, but that's the hang-over from a CAP that got hijacked by the big producers to benefit themselves: it would be like supermarkets getting the lion's share of support that had been intended to help small community businesses.
We subsidise education, transport and health to an eye-watering level (and thereby all the industries that serve them). They aren't left to the free market for very good reason.
To me farming is more akin to the arts.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers0 -
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers0 -
Neither, more like the black forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers0 -
Sorry, I am out on the sauce is an important caveat…surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers
Why are you wandering around exposing yourself to farmers?1 -
OK - i'm challenging the assumption that a state of countryside is better th
Is that a good thing?darkhairedlord said:
Neither, more like the black forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers0 -
For the planet, yes.rick_chasey said:OK - i'm challenging the assumption that a state of countryside is better th
Is that a good thing?darkhairedlord said:
Neither, more like the black forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmersThe 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 -
What about for the humans living on it?pblakeney said:
For the planet, yes.rick_chasey said:OK - i'm challenging the assumption that a state of countryside is better th
Is that a good thing?darkhairedlord said:
Neither, more like the black forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers0 -
to cheer them up - I am an equal opportunities kind of guy who likes to be seen abreast of modern trends on diversity and inclusion.morstar said:
Sorry, I am out on the sauce is an important caveat…surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers
Why are you wandering around exposing yourself to farmers?1 -
Only three things are going to ruin this planet.rick_chasey said:
What about for the humans living on it?pblakeney said:
For the planet, yes.rick_chasey said:OK - i'm challenging the assumption that a state of countryside is better th
Is that a good thing?darkhairedlord said:
Neither, more like the black forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers
Collapse of the sun, asteroids and/or humans.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 -
It wouldn't look like either. Letting some farmland run fallow is not going to reverse 6,000 years of farming. Many of the species that existed then are extinct and new species have evolved to capitalise on a farmed landscape. We have also introduced hundreds of alien species (bet there's a few rhododendrons escaped onto the common). If you stop managing farmland you'll just get unmanaged farmland not virgin forest.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not get what i mean? I can't be bothered to write a 2,000 word essay but do you think if you went back 10,000 years the UK would look more like Epsom Common or a Devon farm?rjsterry said:
Oh FFS. Common land is not natural. It's low grade grazing land for livestock for the use of people who didn't own their own grazing land. Granted little of it is now used as such, but it was put to agricultural use.surrey_commuter said:
a very valid point - Epsom Common has never been agricultural so is as nature intendedrjsterry said:
Says the guy with two decorative wood burners who thinks Epsom is the sticks. I mean who really needs food anyway?surrey_commuter said:
Brian places a high value on the work farmers do to preserve the countryside as it currently is.rick_chasey said:
Why is that better?surrey_commuter said:
I also don't get why you don't want the countryside to return to how it was before man started clearing and managing it.
Me - if nobody wants to farm it then let it run wild
BTW - I said borderline sticks
I have quite a lot of exposure to farms and farmers1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
