Farmers protests

[Trickytreesreds]

I fail to see why folks are still glossing over the basic necessities of self preservation?
Agriculture/ energy/ industry.

Government after government have shut.sold. destroyed the very things that stop you being held to ransom.

Eventually Europe, will sink in its own mire , whilst China/Asia slowly wrestles dominance from it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

GP, not arguing with anything above, in fact between you and Swale (an unlikely combo) I think you’ve made a great deal of sense, but if you’re right about the importance of the EU subsidies (and I’m sure you are), why the hell did the farming community appear to support Brexit?

Strangely TTR is right that the CAP was very much favouring the French and Italian farm industries in the same way industrial policy favoured the Germans. All founder members of EU, no surprises here. Whilst the CAP continued to cushion British farmers, the pre Brentry subsidies were I think better (seem to recall farmers opposing Brentry) and whilst I think farmers were broadly pro By rexot, those that I know were mixed in opinion. I think the trade restrictions/protectionism (eg France not accepting our lamb or beef despite "health clearance") was more behind the pro Brexit feeling rather than money via CAP

[Trickytreesreds]

Strangely TTR is right that the CAP was very much favouring the French and Italian farm industries in the same way industrial policy favoured the Germans. All founder members of EU, no surprises here. Whilst the CAP continued to cushion British farmers, the pre Brentry subsidies were I think better (seem to recall farmers opposing Brentry) and whilst I think farmers were broadly pro By rexot, those that I know were mixed in opinion. I think the trade restrictions/protectionism (eg France not accepting our lamb or beef despite "health clearance") was more behind the pro Brexit feeling rather than money via CAP

Thatcher negotiated rebates for us because if it.
If memeory is correct, Brown promised to give it up, if the French stopped taking so much.
Oui, said the French and away it went.
Then they came back and said NON.

Brilliant Labour negotiations again.

[Trickytreesreds]

oh the ironing,
to quote Jenrick



An investigation found the UK?s aid budget is handing huge sums of money to farmers in Africa, Asia, and South America.

More than ?536 million is being spent overseas on ten programmes including grants to promote low-carbon agriculture practices in Brazil, the worlds 11th richest country.

Another scheme, worth more than ?16 million, aims to produce tea in Rwanda for the first time.

Shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick criticised Labour for spending hundreds of millions on foreign farmers while British livelihoods are destroyed by their cruel inheritance tax changes.

[MadAmster]

Research the REASON behind most foreign aid with the exception of famine and disaster relief.

It's a "bribe" to get foreign government and company contracts for UK firms. If we didn't get far more back than we give out we wouldn't do it.

[ramAnag]

Strangely TTR is right that the CAP was very much favouring the French and Italian farm industries in the same way industrial policy favoured the Germans. All founder members of EU, no surprises here. Whilst the CAP continued to cushion British farmers, the pre Brentry subsidies were I think better (seem to recall farmers opposing Brentry) and whilst I think farmers were broadly pro By rexot, those that I know were mixed in opinion. I think the trade restrictions/protectionism (eg France not accepting our lamb or beef despite "health clearance") was more behind the pro Brexit feeling rather than money via CAP

Thanks. Interesting.
Apparently Farmers Weekly - who should know a thing or two - conducted a survey in May/June of this year about the effect of Brexit upon UK Agriculture. The conclusions were ‘overwhelmingly negative’.
I know the new inheritance law issue represents the current ‘cause celebre’ - especially amongst Labour bashers - but let’s not pretend the Tories/Brexiteers have been the farmers’ friends over the last few years.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I never have pretended that. The views I've heard is that historically all governments are anti farmer (no doubt biased views but maybe with a kernel of truth) as all try to attack subsidies

[Geoff Parkstone]

I never have pretended that. The views I've heard is that historically all governments are anti farmer (no doubt biased views but maybe with a kernel of truth) as all try to attack subsidies

I think farmers are broadly apolitical (although my uncle is a past chairman of the NFU) just wanting to be left alone to get on with their lives. Subsidies and the constant changes to value and the way they are worked out have been a way of life for several generations now! All governments are out to get them ☺️

[swaledale]

As a point of interest those subsidies were introduced after WW2 to maintain a cheap food policy and. In one form or another, have been in place ever since. In addition to HMG giving these subsidies, they were maintained by the EU via the CAP for 50 odd years. Agriculture could not survive without this support and maintain food prices at levels that were affordable ("cheap" may no longer be the right word, especially since globalisation has meant domestic supply and demand are now less relevant). In some years that led to extra profits to farmers but more often than not it didn't.

We used to farm pigs and the ex of farm open market price was ridiculously volatile and cheap such that even with subsidies money was lost regularly - and this was a sizeable breeding herd not an inefficient "mom and pop" operation.

The subsidies helped keep prices stable, regulate the worst of supply and demand pricing and meant your bacon sarnie didn't suddenly double in price overnight.

In one way you can say the industry had been "nationalized" via subsidy to protect the consumer. You can't then throw it back at the farmers as a criticism.

Land values are at the fore of the IHT problems, and they have inflated because of other factors such as development values for housing anticipating change of use approvals, or speculators, or indeed tax strategies by the likes of non farmers eg Clarkson. I have no sympathy with the latter two categories of people getting hammered by tax, but where the markets have driven land values up way in excess of the economics value of the land then some relief is justifiable for generational farmers.

Perhaps the answer is to have taper relief on inherited farms such that the rate applied drops over time after inheritance based on whether the heirs keep farming it - thus avoiding the rather weird pre death gifting hoops that now need to be gone through. If heirs sell up, let them pay a time apportioned tapered tax across say 7-10 years

They will have 10 years to pay it at 0% interest!! It won't be on the whole value of the farm, as for tax planning for the future, isn't that what any other person with significant assets or a business does anyway? Its not that onerous.

Here is the view of someone more informed than you and I.

Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), about the farmers? protest: ?Extraordinary! The amount of coverage for these extremely wealthy people is amazing!? Privileged inheritance status for farmers and businesses was on the very long list of nonsensical tax reliefs advocated for abolition by just about every tax or economic thinktank for years. Even after Rachel Reeves's reform, farmers would pay half the standard rate, and with a higher cap before IHT kicks in. ?Farmers? land is worth so much because rich people buy it to escape IHT. It?s very hard to find a good reason to give them so much more than everyone else. No food? Someone will farm that land. Very few farmers will be affected,? Johnson fumes. The rich, he says, can always command the airwaves. He observed the farmers? protest with a poverty expert who asked sadly why the one-third of children in the UK living below the poverty line couldn?t stage such a protest. But tractors make for good pictures.

Youa re right about variations in market prices, but thats again often down to farmers working against one another. As an example, when oil seed rape was a money spinner, a lot of farmers switched to producing it, result? The price comes down! I often cringe when the media talk about a bad harvest in terms of volume. yes yields may be down, but guess what supply shortages means prices rise. Often the same "profit" will be gained room less produced.

My brother who farmed marginal land in Scotland, never made a "profit", yet through stuff legitimately put through as a business expense (and funnily enough allowable against tax) seemed to have a pretty good standard of living. Don't get me wrong, he had livestock so it was a 7 day a week job, without the ability to go away whenever the fancy took him, he had an arrangement with neighbours to feed and water animals during quiet times for the occasional holiday, but it was a lifestyle he chose. Lets face it, many entrepreneurs, business owners have the same issues. being one sown boss can be rewarding, but the buck stops with you.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"The price comes down! I often cringe when the media talk about a bad harvest in terms of volume. yes yields may be down, but guess what supply shortages means prices rise. Often the same "profit" will be gained room less produced."

The flaw in your argument is that in particular commodity crops such as wheat rape barley are now global markets. In the 60's yield down price up logic was valid. Now if your UK yield goes down it doesn't mean price goes up if weather has lead to big harvests in US Midwest, Australia or (historically) Ukraine. Look at the impact of the Russian invasion on wheat prices as an example - they shot up, but so did fertiliser prices.

Secondly commodity prices are subject to futures markets and speculation by investors with no physical product and so price is no longer a function of simple yield. Farmers are not experts in futures trading or hedging - although they have had to try to become so or face the consequences.