Talk about desperation.....you couldn’t make this up!!

WoodallServices

WoodallServices

Well-known member
UK civil servants are ”preparing to pay” British farmers to retire or switch from farming in order to get a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand!!
That should leave a lot of farms to be bought up by Tories and their mates to make a killing by building housing on them!
 
The deal is to switch from growing crops and culling cattle - to doing something for the 'community' by leaving fields empty - a la 'Fallow'


its called putting nutrients back into the soil - allowing flooding to soak and drain away - revitalising wildlife and so on and so forth.

its a complete caper of being paid to look after the environment.

Landowners using your taxes to look after themselves - The public gets what the public wants .
 
This is on top of the average Landowner getting £21000 every year for....... getting out of bed.
 
Lots of misinformation on this thread. The idea, as I understand it to help older farmers to retire to allow younger people into the industry. The average age of UK farmers is pushing 60. Many are asset rich but cash poor and cant afford to retire. As far as I know there is no connection to the Australia deal. The subsidies that farmers receive basically mean that supermarkets can buy food cheaper. Ultimately it is the consumer that benefits. The payments were originally brought in to boost food production when the country couldn't produce enough. Farmers used this income to improve efficiencies and ultimately started to produce surpluses in some areas. Going forward all payments to farmers will be "earned" by protecting the environment. This is optional so if you farm flat out intensively you will lose your payments. If you take measures to protect the environment then you will be compensated for the loss of income from your core business. I am in favour of this new format as I already farm with the environment in mind and have been in environment schemes for the last 15 years. The only caveat is that the balance has to be right between food production, employment and the environment.
 
The trade deal with Australia, which the government are rushing to get in place without any proper thought or planning for political reasons, looks like it's going to cause serious damage to our agricultural sector. The farmers aren't being paid as a benefit it's to compensate them for having the rug pulled from under their businesses.
 
Centralscrutinizer said:
The trade deal with Australia, which the government are rushing to get in place without any proper thought or planning for political reasons, looks like it's going to cause serious damage to our agricultural sector. The farmers aren't being paid as a benefit it's to compensate them for having the rug pulled from under their businesses.
Click to expand...
Bernie pointed out the real reason is to help older farmers retire. It has nothing to do with the trade deal which is likely to have a 15 year transition to a zero tariff.
 
Bernie's view said:
Lots of misinformation on this thread. The idea, as I understand it to help older farmers to retire to allow younger people into the industry. The average age of UK farmers is pushing 60. Many are asset rich but cash poor and cant afford to retire. As far as I know there is no connection to the Australia deal. The subsidies that farmers receive basically mean that supermarkets can buy food cheaper. Ultimately it is the consumer that benefits. The payments were originally brought in to boost food production when the country couldn't produce enough. Farmers used this income to improve efficiencies and ultimately started to produce surpluses in some areas. Going forward all payments to farmers will be "earned" by protecting the environment. This is optional so if you farm flat out intensively you will lose your payments. If you take measures to protect the environment then you will be compensated for the loss of income from your core business. I am in favour of this new format as I already farm with the environment in mind and have been in environment schemes for the last 15 years. The only caveat is that the balance has to be right between food production, employment and the environment.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the scheme offering retirement is not linked to the Oz trade deal.

However I know of no other private businesses that get as much state aid as farmers and landowners. As much as £21k a year on average for doing what they would normally do anyway.

"Ultimately it is the consumer that benefits" To a small degree but the main benficiary is the farmer/landowner.

You don't see many of them going bust!
 
zzzzz said:
However I know of no other private businesses that get as much state aid as farmers and landowners. As much as £21k a year on average for doing what they would normally do anyway.


You don't see many of them going bust!
Click to expand...

Plenty go bust, there are good farmers and good businessmen, you need to be both to prosper. Which other private business provides the essential ingredient for human survival?
 
Bernie's view said:
Lots of misinformation on this thread. The idea, as I understand it to help older farmers to retire to allow younger people into the industry. The average age of UK farmers is pushing 60. Many are asset rich but cash poor and cant afford to retire. As far as I know there is no connection to the Australia deal. The subsidies that farmers receive basically mean that supermarkets can buy food cheaper. Ultimately it is the consumer that benefits. The payments were originally brought in to boost food production when the country couldn't produce enough. Farmers used this income to improve efficiencies and ultimately started to produce surpluses in some areas. Going forward all payments to farmers will be "earned" by protecting the environment. This is optional so if you farm flat out intensively you will lose your payments. If you take measures to protect the environment then you will be compensated for the loss of income from your core business. I am in favour of this new format as I already farm with the environment in mind and have been in environment schemes for the last 15 years. The only caveat is that the balance has to be right between food production, employment and the environment.
Click to expand...
The way I saw it written did’t suggest the “move out of farming“ was aimed at older farmers. I’m not disputing your facts but I assumed from “civil servants are preparing” that it’s something new not schemes already in place.
Isn’t something that benefits supermarkets is to the detriment of yourself?
As an aside I was surprised to see that Australia have such low standards of animal welfare.
 
Yeah the state funds because every country in world has farming sub in order to make food affordable for people. This is abit stupid though because they'll be less UK food produced meaning more imported at a time we should be looking to go self sufficient but our farmers be making their money in glamping not producing food to feed the nation
 
Boro4life said:
Yeah the state funds because every country in world has farming sub in order to make food affordable for people. This is abit stupid though because they'll be less UK food produced meaning more imported at a time we should be looking to go self sufficient but our farmers be making their money in glamping not producing food to feed the nation
Click to expand...
Glamping and environmental work will keep us in business which means we will continue to produce cheap food with the highest welfare standards in the world. This farm is not as intensive as it once was, but the wildlife benefit and more people are able to appreciate the countryside. Just for some perspective, the 2 acres we have allocated for glamping is more profitable than the other 400 acres used for agriculture ( including subs)
 
Bernie's view said:
Glamping and environmental work will keep us in business which means we will continue to produce cheap food with the highest welfare standards in the world. This farm is not as intensive as it once was, but the wildlife benefit and more people are able to appreciate the countryside. Just for some perspective, the 2 acres we have allocated for glamping is more profitable than the other 400 acres used for agriculture ( including subs)
Click to expand...
Maybe but we do miss the silaging crew in the field out front, it was kind of agricultural ballet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top