CAP Payments to the South Dorset Hunt from the European Union

[Judgemental]

So you maintain that a vote with Boris was a vote against the right wing privileged rich??

You were chiding me in a subsequent post for not responding.

I never said that which you are attributing to any of my posts, I have to say it is an assumption you made.

The reason for not responding, at that time I had my grave doubts as to Mr Johnson's suitability. Therefore waited to see the outcome.

I trust ester you now understand that I did not 'blank' you and if you perceived that I did, you now understand why.

We live in complex times, which will become increasingly complex.

For what it's worth, the Agricultural Industry and Farmers, would do well to keep quiet for the moment. My sources indicate senior bankers generally, are very jittery.

 

[ester]

The whole vote to leave the EU was a vote by the majority who are against the right wing privileged rich. The so called establishment, the bankers hedge funds, exploiting manufacturers and all the ridiculous people who tried to tell them how to vote.

.

So how exactly do you fit that with a campaign led by boris johnson?

I wasn't suggesting anything about his PM chances/intentions, just that he led the leave campaign and you say that the vote to leave the EU was a vote by the majority who are against the right wing privileged rich, I don't see how you get to that conclusion given the main players for the leave campaign?

 

[Judgemental]

So how exactly do you fit that with a campaign led by boris johnson?

I wasn't suggesting anything about his PM chances/intentions, just that he led the leave campaign and you say that the vote to leave the EU was a vote by the majority who are against the right wing privileged rich, I don't see how you get to that conclusion given the main players for the leave campaign?

Indeed it was a vote against the right wing privileged rich or as the media put it the Establishment.

Mr Johnson served his purpose and like everything in British politics, you never know quite who is friend or foe. They may smile and glad hand one but deep down they have Machiavellian intent. The front man is so often, Public School and well heeled and then becomes the fall guy. He appealed to the masses but was merely a 'stool pigeon'. Go Back to Heseltine for example, who was seen off by Lady Thatcher in 1983.

Conservatives are brilliant at the front man scenario, with their 'Dark Arts' of flattery and finesse, convincing him (or her although don't think the ladies would be so gullible) he's their choice, largely because he goes down well with the electorate during any campaign but deep down their plotting is for another.....

As I said:

"We live in complex times, which will become increasingly complex".

I will add to that, "always expect the unexpected". Said with a somewhat sinister chuckle.

 

[ester]

Nope, still don't understand your reasoning with a right wing elite leading the leave campaign how that was a vote against that.

 

[Judgemental]

Nope, still don't understand your reasoning with a right wing elite leading the leave campaign how that was a vote against that.

Ok perhaps "hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes" will appeal to your understanding?

 

[ester]

baffled.

It's just not an argument based on much logic when the facts would indicate something totally opposed to what you are suggesting and seem unable to explain how you got that conclusion in plain english.

 

[Fellewell]

Perhaps the old boy network is important to Judgemental? Johnson and Gove were both scholarship boys and in some circles that still counts for a lot.

 

[popsdosh]

I said several post back that BJ never wanted the Leave vote to win ,just get close enough to force the EU into changing things. Why do you think the leave campaign took their foot off the gas coming up to the vote in the last week it was nearly all UKIP and Farage that was making the headlines on that side they were being left to suffer the fall out when they lost the vote with Boris and Gove keeping their heads down. Why do you think it took so long for them to reappear after the vote. The problem is it all went so wrong for them. Cameron knew the score why do you think he resigned so quickly but to get one back on the disloyal duo.

 

[ester]

All of which makes perfect sense to me popsdosh and was particularly clear last Friday morning.

 

[popsdosh]

BJ similar to Heseltine has committed political suicide over this. Whilst Gove has to stand to try and save face and keep his feet under the table with the tories he has no ambition to be prime minister at all. Judging by what his wife said about BJ a couple of days ago I suspect even if he got into power he would merely be her mouthpiece. All we need is the country being run by the prime ministers spouse again!

Can I make another prediction however expect the labour in fighting to kick off again next week led by the ex PMs faithful it will make a wonderful smokescreen for the Chilcott report. Call me a cynic if you like! I think its why JC is hanging on by his fingernails to be there when thats published to make sure he can rub salt into a few wounds and settle some scores.

 

[Judgemental]

Perhaps the old boy network is important to Judgemental? Johnson and Gove were both scholarship boys and in some circles that still counts for a lot.

A useful tool in the scheme of things. Goodness this is England, nobody says what they mean and their actions and manners belie hidden depths of political depravity.

Hum, political depravity, that about sums it all up?

 

[Judgemental]

We need to sort out who is going to be the next Prime Minister.

For my money and I do have money on her and that is Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom, age 53. Educated at Tonbridge Grammer School and read Political Science at Warwick University followed by a successful career in the City.

Has a 23k majority in South Northampton

That's that then.

Do we have any contributors who are her constituents?

 

[Judgemental]

AHH - how many more times? EU farm subsidies are paid to keep farmers on the land and to subsidse the cost of food production to the consumers, i.e. the people going round the supermarket every week for their shopping. Also farmers have to comply with rules and regulations and have inspections and breach of the rules means a reduction in payments.

The Lords and Ladies, the Church and Universities, Pension Funds and other landowners (including hunts) have to do something with their land so they can either let it out to tenants who may or may not receive the EU subsidy and pay rent according to the tenancy agreement or farm it "in hand" like farmers. In which case they are treated like any other farmer and can claim whatever is available. As I stated before, the DEFRA officials negotiating within the EU fought very hard to ensure that all farmers in the UK, whatever their size, should be able to claim all subsidies, otherwise the UK would have been at a very big disadvantage and get a lot less out of the CAP.

That there are still large landowners is down to politics. The fact that our family own some land is because in previous generations land had to be sold off to pay death duties. There are still a great many families that own estates and large tracts and is due to being clever and working what assets they have and the fact that recent Labour Governments have stopped short of "making the pips sqeak." For instance a local Lord put his estate into a Trust, so that it continues as a whole and it doesn't matter who the heir to the title is. You may or may not know that agricultural land is exempt from inheritance tax (along with some business assets) hence the popularity and price of agricultural land among people who have made their millions from what ever source.

It bit slow in coming but as I predicted. Although I did not expect Greenpeace to lead the van.......better get all those inherited acres on the market a bit quick.........

"Farm leaders defend subsidies amid Greenpeace criticism
Philip Case Farmer's Weekly
Thursday 29 September 2016 14:36 Aerial View Of Farms, Giant's Causeway© Design Pics Inc/REX/Shutterstock
Farm leaders have defended the need for direct payments funded by the UK taxpayers after a Greenpeace report revealed wealthy landowners, aristocrats and a Saudi prince were among the top recipients of CAP subsidies.

The Queen, Lord Iveagh, the Duke of Westminster, Duke of Northumberland, Saudi horse breeder Khalid Abdullah al Saud and others each received EU farm subsidies in excess of £400,000 last year.

Sandringham Farms, the 6,400ha estate owned by the Queen, received £557,706.52 and the Duke of Westminster’s estate, which is farmed by Grosvenor Farms Limited, received £437,433.96.

See also: Prepare now for less support post-Brexit, farmers told

Aberdeenshire farmer Frank Smart topped the list, receiving a total payment of nearly £3m (£2,963,732.77). Mr Smart farms about 34,400ha, from Aberdeenshire to the Western Isles, under his business Frank A Smart & Son.

Prince Khalid Abullah with his racehorse Frankel © Hugh Routledge/REX/Shutterstock
Prince Khalid Abullah with his racehorse Frankel © Hugh Routledge/REX/Shutterstock

Two large estates owned by household goods billionaire Sir James Dyson, under the business name Beeswax Farming (Rainbow) Ltd, received £1,437,706.39.

A total of £87,927,951 was paid to the top 100 in 2015. Of this, £61,194,962 was given under the now defunct single payment scheme (SPS), meaning the top 100 recipients were paid more than the bottom 55,119 combined.

National Trust and RSPB in top 20
The National Trust, Natural England and the RSPB were all in the top 20. But Greenpeace said these organisations “used their subsidies for important conservation work such as managing habitats”.

These same organisations are calling for a post-Brexit policy that encourages landowners to do more for the environment and rewards those who are already farming in ways that benefit nature.

Greenpeace said its report showed the CAP continues to “reward major landowners and wealthy individuals on the basis of how much land they own” and only “minor weight” was given to environmental protection and the sustaining of food supplies in the rural economy.

But farm leaders hit back at the claims, insisting that large estate owners were increasingly being paid for the good work they do for the environment.

Billionaire Sir James Dyson © Action Press/REX/Shutterstock
Billionaire Sir James Dyson
© Action Press/REX/Shutterstock

Large-scale landowners ‘best placed’ to help environment
Christopher Price, policy director at the Country, Land and Business Association (CLA), said: “Managing larger tracts of land can make a significant difference to enhancing our natural world because of the scale of operations.

“Vital environmental objectives such as improving water quality or increasing farmland bird populations require investment, so it is these larger landowners who are best placed to provide these benefits for future generations.”

Andrew Clark, NFU director of policy, said: “British farmers create a countryside that works for everyone. They are the primary food producers growing the raw ingredients for the UK’s food and drink sector, worth £108bn – and supporting jobs for 3.9 million people.

“The current financial support to farm businesses helps with the delivery of a secure food supply.

“We must remember… that the average support payment for a dairy farmer, for example, is £25,000/year while the average monthly running cost of a dairy farm is £40,000 – without taking wages.

“These farm businesses have roots that run through the rural community and their contribution is significant on both a local and national scale when it comes to the economy.”

The Conservative government has said it will ensure the level of direct payments paid to UK farmers remains the same until 2020. However, beyond Brexit, the level of farm support has yet to be agreed.

UK farms and organisations receiving most CAP in 2015
Farm/organisation Pillar 1 payments Total CAP payments
1. Frank A Smart & Son Ltd £2,986,506 £2,986,506
2. National Trust
£2,666,880

£8,056,505
3. RSPB £2,002,860 £3,584,032
4. Farmcare Trading Ltd £1,705,795 £1,784,647
5. Beeswax Farming Ltd £1,437,706 £1,546,462
6. RJ & TJ & MT Feakins £1,235,167 £1,270,282
7. Blankney Estates Ltd £1,130,101 £1,690,411
8. Strutt & Parker (Farms) Ltd £1,105,969 £1,227,909
9. Waldersey Farms Ltd £1,009,802 £1,079,787
10. Sir Richard Sutton Estates Ltd £994,244 £1,149,586
(Source: Greenpeace)"

 

[popsdosh]

 

[Judgemental]

Face it farming is over as we knew it, the gravy train has run out steam.

Sell the farm quick, put the money in an off-shore trust and spend the rest of your days on golden sands amid palm trees on a Caribbean Island or similar

You can hunt in Virginia or up into Canada or across to British Colombia.

 

[Overread]

Conservation is also going to be hard hit and not just from CAP but other payment systems and EU initiatives that pushed through changes to benefit conservation in general.

Although in truth its likely only accelerated what was probably going to happen in time anyway as the EU was continually taking in poorer and poorer nations which would eventually have resulted in very little pot left for the more developed nations to pick out of.

 

[Judgemental]

Greenpeace investigation exposes agricultural subsidies linked to tax havens and billionaires

Last edited 29 September 2016 at 3:58pm
29 September, 2016
A Greenpeace investigation has for the first time analysed the Top 100 recipients of the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) “single payment scheme” – subsidies paid out based on the area of land owned.
Painting a picture of “a broken system which sends public subsidies into billionaires’ bank accounts,” the study reveals:

Individuals or families featured in the Sunday Times’ Rich List own or control 16 businesses among the Top 100 beneficiaries, receiving a total of £10.6m last year in “single payment scheme” subsidies alone, and £13.4m in total farm subsidies. Individuals in this group received single payments ranging from £395,000 to £1.4m.

Tax havens: four cases where the entities receiving subsidies were owned through offshore companies based in the “secrecy jurisdictions” of Jersey and Guernsey. A total of £3 million was paid to companies owned through tax havens. There is no suggestion that the owners of these companies have sought to avoid tax.

Greenpeace’s investigation also reveals huge payments to wealthy foreign owners not included on the British Rich List, including a racehorse-breeding Saudi prince previously listed on Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index who describes his operation receiving subsidies as a “hobby” (see notes); and the Swedish billionaire majority owner of H&M.

One in five of the recipients are from British aristocratic families, including high-profile figures such as the late Duke of Westminster (who was one of the wealthiest men in Britain), the Queen and Lord Iveagh of the Guinness family.

A total of £87,927,951 was paid to the Top 100 in 2015. Of this, £61,194,962 was given under the single payment scheme, meaning the Top 100 recipients were paid more than the bottom 55,000 combined.

Recipients on the list include Conservative Party donors, and even a Conservative MP.

While recipients use their land in different ways, with some working in ways which clearly benefit the environment, the system does not distinguish between those who do and those who don’t.

See notes for further details.

The revelations will pile pressure on the Environment Secretary, Andrea Leadsom, to reform a farming subsidy system which has historically given only minor weight to environmental protection and the sustaining of food supplies in the rural economy and which continues to reward major landowners and wealthy individuals on the basis of how much land they own.

“It is untenable for the Government to justify keeping a farming policy which allows a billionaire to breed race horses on land subsidised by taxpayers. It’s clear that there cannot be a business-as-usual approach to farm subsidies after we leave the EU. One look at where these eye-watering sums are ending up is enough to show that the CAP system is kaput, and continuing in the same vein would be a costly mistake,” said Hannah Martin of Greenpeace UK’s Brexit Response Team. “Some of the recipients of these subsidies are doing great work which benefits our environment - but others are not - and it makes no sense that the CAP’s largest subsidy payments don’t distinguish between the two. That can’t be right. All landowners should be encouraged to help with things like conservation, sustainable food production, building thriving rural economies, maintaining healthy soils and reducing flood-risk.”

Greenpeace UK’s investigation team scrutinised Government figures and Companies House documents to trace ownership of the hundred largest recipients of the “single payment scheme”, the core part of the CAP’s £2.4bn “Pillar One” funding, which is based on the area of land owned.

While the recipients use their land in different ways, the current system remains blind to whether or not they are producing a public good - socially, economically and environmentally. Organisations such as the National Trust, RSPB and Wildlife Trusts, for example, have used their subsidies for important conservation work like managing habitats. These same organisations are also calling for a post-Brexit policy which encourages landowners to do more for the environment and rewards those who are already farming in ways which benefit nature.

Greenpeace’s Hannah Martin added:

“We cannot continue with a broken system which sends public subsidies into billionaires’ bank accounts. The British Government has never had a better opportunity to reshape our farming sector for the common good. We should be using any subsidies to improve the lot of farmers who really need our support and champion landowners who promote wildlife and biodiversity, use their land to help reduce flooding in their area and provide carbon storage to tackle climate change.”

Notes to editors:

See the full investigation here:

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...-millions-eu-subsidies-go-richest-landowners/

The CAP Rich List

16 of the Top 100 recipients are owned or controlled by individuals or families who feature on the 2016 Sunday Times Rich List. These include the aristocratic Guinness family, Swedish financier and racehorse owner Erik Penser, household goods billionaire Sir James Dyson, Lord Iliffe and family (descendents of the newspaper magnate and former Conservative MP Baron Edward Mauger Iliffe), and Duncan Henry Davidson, founder of the housebuilder Persimmon.

At least one in five of the Top 100 recipients are owned or controlled by members of British aristocratic families, including the Queen, the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Northumberland, Sir Richard Sutton, the Earl of Moray, Baron Phillimore and family, and the Earl of Plymouth.

“Hobby” horse

In a remarkable case, one recipient owned through an offshore Guernsey company is Juddmonte Farms, the internationally famous racehorse-breeding operation of Prince Khalid Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The huge breeding operation, which has produced some of the most famous stallions in recent history, including the champion racehorse Frankel, turned over £53m in 2015, but only 2.8% of that income (£1.5m) came from farming. Although the UK company reported profits of £8.7m in 2015 it paid no corporation tax, due to trading losses in previous years.

Juddmonte’s training manager has previously told the Financial Times that it is “not run as a commercial operation” and that in most years the prince puts money into the business rather than taking it out. The prince, who is worth around $1bn according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has previously been quoted as describing the Juddmonte operation as his “hobby”. Juddmonte was given £406,826 in CAP subsidies last year, of which £378,856 came from the single payment scheme.

Other Top 100 recipients

The Top 100 includes various other individuals or families whose wealth has in the past been valued in the tens of millions of pounds, or who are immediately related to people on the Sunday Times or Forbes rich lists. Among them are Michael Bertioli, who reportedly received £58m when he sold his stake in sensor company Druck Holdings in 2002; Fred Duncan, the founder of one time major meat supplier Grampian Country Foods; and Niels Holch Povlsen, the younger brother of Danish fashion billionaire Anders Holch Povlsen.

Other Top 100 recipients include the Conservative MP Richard Drax, a business linked to the Mormon Church, the conservation quango Natural England, water company Severn Trent and conservation charities such as the National Trust and the RSPB which are calling for reform of farming policy post-Brexit.

 

[Orangehorse]

Well Margaret Beckett as Labour Minister of Agriculture put in place all the current rules and regulations. I think the EU was planning to cap payments for the larger landowners, but now we are out of the EU that will stop.

So what would your Agricultural Policy be, Judgemental? In pure farming terms - without taking into account the CAP payment - accountants will tell you that ordinary family farms do not make a profit. Large scale farms sometimes do, with economies of scale.

Let's hear your plan, to keep British food in the shops.

 

[Goldenstar]

We need a agricultural support system that works for the taxpayer .
All of us who live in countryside can see that in some cases the taxpayer is being taken for a huge ride .
Personally I am disinterested in the wealth of the people recieving the support it more what's being done with the money are the farms well run ,is the welfare good , is access for public for walking and that sort of thing working .
No politician has had to make an argument for justifying agricultural support for forty years it's won't be an easy sell to the taxpayer .
I will enjoy watching this one run because I am not personally involved but I would be concerned if I were .

 

[Judgemental]

Well Margaret Beckett as Labour Minister of Agriculture put in place all the current rules and regulations. I think the EU was planning to cap payments for the larger landowners, but now we are out of the EU that will stop.

So what would your Agricultural Policy be, Judgemental? In pure farming terms - without taking into account the CAP payment - accountants will tell you that ordinary family farms do not make a profit. Large scale farms sometimes do, with economies of scale.

Let's hear your plan, to keep British food in the shops.

Firstly the NFU would do well to stop lobbying Ministers, on the basis, running a farm is a business just like any other with all it's problems - why should farmers enjoy the level of benefits and handouts that other businesses do not receive.

Secondly clearly there is a wholesale Sea-Change as a result of Brexit.

Land was valued at about £500.00 per acre before we entered the Common Market. Rents were somewhere between £10 - £30 per acre.

There is no reason why those levels should not be restored. Indeed that could be achieved by Statutory Legislation.

If one brings down the price of land and rents therefore the lower the cost of production and assuming farms receive the same price for their products they are no worse off and the country has food at the same price as before Brexit.

Of course there will be howls of anguish by current farmers that their equity is being lost, well that's a price well worth paying. There are only 185k of farmers and about half are owner occupiers. Most of which is based on inherited wealth. Of course if they are mortgaged, let the bank carry the can.

This will mean many owner occupiers will sell up and new intake of young farmers can afford to buy up to 500 acres. That's only £250,000 which is easily sustainable at the bank even if there was an increase in interest rates.

As for tenanted farms. Large landlords who are being focused upon by such as Greenpeace and for the foreseeable future, will simply have to accept the £10 - £30 per acre or they too should sell up.

The bottom line being, strip out all the subsidies, reduce the cost of land or rents with a statutory ceiling on both.

All that money that is being paid to rich farmers and landowners for largely inherited wealth can be spent on hospitals, schools, roads and providing much cheaper housing in the inner cities for young families.

Simple would you not agree.

Let's face it the minister and her civil servants must be seeing all the information being peddled by such as Greenpeace and it must make them sit up and think about a complete realignment of British Agriculture.

 

[Lizzie66]

There is a big move towards ethical farming and away from high intensity farming. This comes at a price. If we want the rural landscape of Britain to be totally changed to huge fields no hedgerows or headlands and our livestock to be kept in high density housing then we can remove the subsidies. If we want them to actively participate in conservation and to enable people more access to the countryside then we need to recompense them for the money they could be making if they farmed more intensively.

Yes it needs looking at again and it needs to be targeted at a combination of best practice and agricultural need but the subsidies should remain.

You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder about people inheriting but personally I don't see why if I have worked hard all my life that I shouldn't be able to give what I have accumulated to my family. The idea of the government taking it off me and redistributing it, to me, is an abhorrent idea, although I suppose the merit of it would be that you would make sure you spent it rather than left it !!

 

[Orangehorse]

Well, it is simple, I think New Zealand did something like this. We were actually discussing this morning round the breakfast table that agricultural land should be around £1,200 per acre, based on the current price of wheat. It is actually around £8,000 and the CAP subsidy system has undoubtedly fed into the price of land (apart from land not being made any more.) It would be an interesting ride. It would lead to suicides, as farmers would have borrowed to buy land, even up to 23rd June, and see their value wiped out. The loudest objection would come from the banks who have lent money for people to buy land.

But farming is not like other businesses, as the population as a whole is interested in what the landscape looks like, and they like to spend time in the countryside. It isn't like a factory shut away in an industrial estate. Also there are 75 million people who need to be fed every day - it isn't like a factory making furniture that you can choose to buy or not.
At one time Britain was 75% self sufficient in food that can be produced in this country. This has decreased, but even so, it does make a difference to the balance of payments.

Judgemental, there is a certain logic in your solution, it will be interesting to see what comes. At least OH now has his state pension to fall back on.

 

[Goldenstar]

But farming ought to be like any other business .
I agree tha it's not because many effectively farm subsisties not produce a product .
Some sit do nothing and live off their payments .
After 2020 it will be a whole new world .
They still have agriculture in New Zealand , it will all work out in the end .

 

[Judgemental]

Well, it is simple, I think New Zealand did something like this. We were actually discussing this morning round the breakfast table that agricultural land should be around £1,200 per acre, based on the current price of wheat. It is actually around £8,000 and the CAP subsidy system has undoubtedly fed into the price of land (apart from land not being made any more.) It would be an interesting ride. It would lead to suicides, as farmers would have borrowed to buy land, even up to 23rd June, and see their value wiped out. The loudest objection would come from the banks who have lent money for people to buy land.

But farming is not like other businesses, as the population as a whole is interested in what the landscape looks like, and they like to spend time in the countryside. It isn't like a factory shut away in an industrial estate. Also there are 75 million people who need to be fed every day - it isn't like a factory making furniture that you can choose to buy or not.
At one time Britain was 75% self sufficient in food that can be produced in this country. This has decreased, but even so, it does make a difference to the balance of payments.

Judgemental, there is a certain logic in your solution, it will be interesting to see what comes. At least OH now has his state pension to fall back on.

Orangehorse you are making some excellent points. I was also looking at matters from the prospective of buyers. Would one go and buy a farm, any farm at current values, not a chance. One would be stark raving mad. Whilst the minister says he would maintain subsidies until we leave the EU, (although not a view shared by the Brexit Minister) after that it's anybody's guess. I reckon only farms in disadvantaged areas, hill farms etc will receive anything after we leave.

Thing is, the vast majority bought or inherited farms years ago and therefore, it's as if they bought at £1,200.00 per acre. I did a calculation and came out at a bottom figure of £1,500.00 post 2020.

So either one sticks with it, or bales out at about £4000.00 per acre immediately, bound to be a few who would take a punt at that level.

As for the bankers, it's up to them to start talking to anybody who is over leveraged. Would any banker lend at £8,000.00 per acre, they would banking bonkers!

As for rents, well any tenant is on a winner. No doubt they can get their rents down incrementally.

Landlords won't like it one little bit, but tough luck, they have had it far too good for far too long.

With the likes of Greenpeace loudly now on the case, which has genuinely surprised me, it's going to be flagged up for all to see and the Ministers are going to be mindful of an election in three years.

Frankly what are farm votes, neither here nor there but the idea of money being paid to rich landowners when there is desperate need for inner city housing, hospital and schools, is wholly unpalatable. Along with cheap food for the masses.

Lord this and lady that will have to personally get on a tractor and start ploughing up their precious parklands and grow vegetables.

 

[popsdosh]

JM in lala land again! I wondered where you had gone ,have they let you out again

Land around here still selling very easily at roughly the same price pre june. I havent a clue where you get your quotes from.
I do find your theories so funny how is buying land for the subsidy good business it will cost you £400/acre to service the purchase for an income from subsidy of £80/acre a loss of £320/acre even us carrot crunching half wits can work out thats silly! Funnily enough Arable land sold in NZ in the last twelve months has averaged £31,200 (55,000 NZD) per hectare when in this country it would average £28,000/ha and I am sure you know NZ has no subsidies sort of blows your theory out of the water.
Just for your information from somebody that actually knows it is still easy to get bank funding for land purchase and will remain so, whats actually keeping up prices is demand from those selling land to build rabbit hutches who then need to reinvest and foreign buyers who see our land as good value.

 

[Judgemental]

JM in lala land again! I wondered where you had gone ,have they let you out again

Land around here still selling very easily at roughly the same price pre june. I havent a clue where you get your quotes from.
I do find your theories so funny how is buying land for the subsidy good business it will cost you £400/acre to service the purchase for an income from subsidy of £80/acre a loss of £320/acre even us carrot crunching half wits can work out thats silly! Funnily enough Arable land sold in NZ in the last twelve months has averaged £31,200 (55,000 NZD) per hectare when in this country it would average £28,000/ha and I am sure you know NZ has no subsidies sort of blows your theory out of the water.
Just for your information from somebody that actually knows it is still easy to get bank funding for land purchase and will remain so, whats actually keeping up prices is demand from those selling land to build rabbit hutches who then need to reinvest and foreign buyers who see our land as good value.

You missed my point. Twice I said in 2 x posts that I am very surprised that Greenpeace have taken the matter up with such well informed zeal.

Only in the last 72 hours.

When an organisation as powerful as Greenpeace and their immense resources takes on an issue, you can bet it will have a profound effect both on their membership, the voting public and that politicians are going to listen.

They clearly state money is going into the pockets of the already wealthy inherited rich, in their opinion when and where it will be better spent elsewhere

Trust me the governing force will be bearish sentiment influencing bankers and buyers.

Also what is the relevance of New Zealand, too geographically distant

 

[ycbm]

The whole thing is a mess. We pay too little for our carrots and beef, and then pay too much tax to subsidise farmers and to pay working tax credits to farm hands who are paid too little. It would be better if we paid the right price for our food in the first place and adjusted benefits and pensions to make sure non tax payers could still afford to eat.

 

[popsdosh]

You missed my point. Twice I said in 2 x posts that I am very surprised that Greenpeace have taken the matter up with such well informed zeal.

Only in the last 72 hours.

When an organisation as powerful as Greenpeace and their immense resources takes on an issue, you can bet it will have a profound effect both on their membership, the voting public and that politicians are going to listen.

They clearly state money is going into the pockets of the already wealthy inherited rich, in their opinion when and where it will be better spent elsewhere

Trust me the governing force will be bearish sentiment influencing bankers and buyers.

Also what is the relevance of New Zealand, too geographically distant

Merely to point out that subsidies will have no effect on land prices as NZ already operate on a system with no subsidy . this point was raised because you have done nothing but bang on about how subsidies are the reason for artificially high prices when those who work on the coalface knows its not. You will find through out the world where ever there is productive arable land it is in demand as in proportion to the mouths that need to be fed it is in short supply and is declining all the time. I am afraid you can reference as many articles as you like however most are written by those who know as much as you do to be frank. Just to add we all know what balanced political views Greenpeace has and no axe to grind but they want to be careful as they have nearly dragged other charities into the firing line along with the so called well off. As much as it may seem wrong to you why should not every farmer be treated equally when it comes to support payments. often the wealthy are actually doing more for it.

 

[Lizzie66]

But farming ought to be like any other business .
I agree tha it's not because many effectively farm subsisties not produce a product .
Some sit do nothing and live off their payments .
After 2020 it will be a whole new world .
They still have agriculture in New Zealand , it will all work out in the end .

Would you mind telling me how many other businesses are obliged to let people wander all over their factory when they please ?

 

[Goldenstar]

Would you mind telling me how many other businesses are obliged to let people wander all over their factory when they please ?

Farmers don't own footpaths they are rights of way .
The right to roam which England only covers some types of land is a small price to pay for the money that the tax payer has shovelled into agriculture in the last forty years .
Life with reduced subsisties is coming farmers better prepare the money will be being spread out to keep other industries here l Jaguar Landrover and Nissan for a start and great load of banks .