CAP Payments to the South Dorset Hunt from the European Union

[popsdosh]

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 .

So cheaper food was not a price worth paying for subsidies. If it wasnt for subsidies the countryside would not be what it is today and a lot of it would be no pleasure to walk around. Sorry it doesnt happen by magic. The government will never stop subsidising farmers as it is indeed the hold they have over us to give them what they want it has been that way for a long time .Subsidies did not suddenly appear with the EEC you know

Please enlighten me as to who owns Footpaths and rights of way and I mean own not have access too I would google it first so you know in future. Us landowners indeed own that land for the great unwashed to trample over.

 

[ycbm]

So cheaper food was not a price worth paying for subsidies

No. Because all that happened was we paid the subsidies through tax, paid for the added bureaucracy on top, and corrupted the whole damned system.

WHY are we subsidising the production of the British hothouse/polytunnel strawberries being sold in the supermarkets in October? Let's go back to eating fruit in season.

 

[popsdosh]

No. Because all that happened was we paid the subsidies through tax, paid for the added bureaucracy on top, and corrupted the whole damned system.

WHY are we subsidising the production of the British hothouse/polytunnel strawberries being sold in the supermarkets in October? Let's go back to eating fruit in season.

But your not !!! I really dont see that £80/acre makes a huge difference in a crop that has investment of £60k /acre Its a lot bigger argument than the simplistic one you perceive .

 

[Lizzie66]

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 .

Wrong they own them. yes there is an obligation to allow people to have right of access over them. This does not give them the right to wander off chasing after their dog when they have let it off the lead and can't get it back thereby damaging the crops that have been put in place, nor chasing after stock when gates have been left open or replacing gates / stiles when folks have damaged them. Never mind the litter etc that can get left on these paths.

Wouldn't it be great if farmers put in 8 foot high closed iron railings / panels with a 6ft width to enable folks to walk ? This would stop people damaging their property, might make the countryside look a little less inviting and would certainly make going for a walk or hack in the countryside a little less appealing but hey if that's what it takes then there you go.

It is a unique situation and comparatives to other industries are just not possible. Agreed that the subsidies need overhauling but not removing in their entirety.

 

[ester]

Like this one you mean

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otpath-land-building-giant-metal-barrier.html

 

[jrp204]

Like this one you mean

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otpath-land-building-giant-metal-barrier.html

Good man!
We have had lamb carcasses damaged through worms carried by dogs "Sheep infected with the larvae of T. hydatigena, T. ovis, T. multiceps and E. granulosus can show clinical disease, and the larvae can also affect the growth rates of growing lambs. There can also be significant losses due to carcase and offal condemnations in slaughterhouses and cutting plants."
That alongside the risk of dogs chasing/worrying livestock! People don't like it.... tough! it isn't affecting their livelihood.

 

[Lizzie66]

Like this one you mean

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otpath-land-building-giant-metal-barrier.html

Yes just like this !!

 

[fburton]

On balance I think the fence was justified. The surrounding weren't super-pretty anyway.

 

[Orangehorse]

Two pages in this week's Farmers Weekly about this subject. Figures are out of date. The largest recipients are the National Trust and the RSPB. Anyone, large or small, has to farm the land to the same standards and the "slipper farmers" were in Scotland.

That was after a quick look at the article.

 

[Overread]

It is odd how when big conservation groups get a huge amount of their income from those; how its Greenpeace who have picked up the banner against it. However in general it seems to be the whole "old money/rich getting richer" angle that they've taken. Without even considering that without payments for things like beetlebanks and the like those "super rich" would simply farm the land in a more profit orientated and efficient manner and likely make as much in straight farming or other land productive profit.

So the rich would still be "richer" it would just mean there'd be less habitat. In general land has to earn money and be productive for those who own it; very few can afford to have vast areas of land generate little profit or be purely given over to conservation; and those that can still have to generate income if they are to manage that land (even if nature is let to take its course there's still invasive species or overpopulation of select species to manage).

 

[Judgemental]

The last post on this thread was October 2014.

The piece herewith from The Times of today 20/11/17 makes interesting reading. Originated by The Conservative Think Tank, Bright Blue. Conservative! Packs of hounds amongst others to be means Tested. Goodness knows what Mr Corbyn might do, indeed I am told the Labour party don't think such measures are sufficiently radical.

Clearly the price of land is going to fall dramatically, it's really a question of by how much.

"Ditch subsidies to rich farmers after Brexit, urges Bright Blue think tank
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
November 20 2017, 12:01am,
The Times
UK politics
Technology
European Union
Conservative Party
Politics
The environment secretary has signalled that he will abolish payments just for owning land
The environment secretary has signalled that he will abolish payments just for owning land

Farmers should be means-tested after Brexit to end the payment of vast subsidies to wealthy landowners, according to a Conservative think tank.

The EU system of paying farmers according to how much land they own should be replaced by payments for environmental benefits plus a “means-tested livelihood support” for the poorest, the report by Bright Blue says.

It accepts that the system could reduce food production and make Britain more reliant on imports, which account for 40 per cent of consumption. However, it says that the loss of self-sufficiency is a price worth paying for protecting wildlife and natural beauty.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, has signalled that he will abolish payments just for owning land and the Bright Blue report is expected to influence his thinking.

Several billionaires are among recipients of the highest farm subsidies under the common agricultural policy (CAP), including Khalid Abdullah al-Saud, who breeds racehorses on a Newmarket farm which receives more than £400,000 a year. Farms owned by Sir James Dyson, the inventor who backed Brexit and is thought to be worth £7 billion, received £1.6 million last year, according to analysis by Greenpeace.

Bright Blue says that the government should use Brexit to “end the situation where public subsidies are paid to owners of large estates without any public good received in return”.

The overall annual subsidy paid to farmers should remain at £3.1 billion until 2026 to give farmers time to adapt to changes, it says. However, most of the money should be paid under a market-based system in which farmers would bid to deliver environmental benefits, with payments made quarterly based on results.

The report, A Greener, More Pleasant Land, lists the benefits which would attract payments, including planting new woodland, creating footpaths through fields, removing invasive plants, reducing the use of pesticides and fertiliser, creating ponds in uplands to reduce risk of floods and, contentiously, reintroducing beavers or lynx.

Ben Caldecott, co-author of the report and director of the University of Oxford’s sustainable finance programme, said that separate means-tested payments were needed for small farms relying heavily on CAP payments. Payments for environmental services could be funded by the government and other organisations, such as water companies receiving water less contaminated by fertiliser and insurers and property developers facing less flood risk.

Mr Caldecott said: “Commissioning ecosystem services effectively using market-based approaches will bring significant benefits, including a more sustainable farming industry, enhanced natural beauty, greater biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, improved natural flood defences, better water quality, better mental and physical health, and better air quality.”

Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and environmentalist, said: “Instead of simply paying people for owning land, we can tailor that support to reward good stewardship of the land. This brilliant report maps out a vision of how we can do that.” Dame Caroline Spelman, who was environment secretary in David Cameron’s first government, said: “Bright Blue has made a useful contribution to the debate surrounding post-Brexit agricultural policy.”

 

[Alec Swan]

Judgemental, your quote above is no more than a ridiculous and so pointless exercise which will achieve absolutely nothing.

Reform is desperately needed but means testing is not the way to make progress. Those who produce the food which we eat need State support, there's no question of that for without that aid, we will be at the mercy of imported food and run the risk of our farming industry collapsing. Once any industry dies, it is never revived.

The mid-road answer would be to return to the days when production was supported but linking those payments made via the use of a percentage of the land and or production being tied in to environmental conditions. This would achieve what's needed whilst weeding out those who buy land simply for the 'Benefits'.

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental, your quote above is no more than a ridiculous and so pointless exercise which will achieve absolutely nothing.

Reform is desperately needed but means testing is not the way to make progress. Those who produce the food which we eat need State support, there's no question of that for without that aid, we will be at the mercy of imported food and run the risk of our farming industry collapsing. Once any industry dies, it is never revived.

The mid-road answer would be to return to the days when production was supported but linking those payments made via the use of a percentage of the land and or production being tied in to environmental conditions. This would achieve what's needed whilst weeding out those who buy land simply for the 'Benefits'.

Alec.

Alec first of all it's on the front page of this morning's Times. hardly a red top and a newspaper that is respected around the world.

Similarly the Conservative Party's Think Tank Bright Blue is highly respected.

My fundamental point is that a very strong light is being shone on what is an unacceptable situation, that very rich folk are being paid money simply because they own land.

Therefore, taking the reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus, he will be waking up to the procedure and the sentiment that will almost certainly affect land prices, bearing in mind the issues over housing and the fact house prices are so absurdly high is due in part to high land prices.

Let us not forget land was valued and trading at £500.00 per acre when we entered the Common Market in 1972.

The fact packs of hounds have jumped on the gravy train of free handouts of money for nothing, is indicative of the wholesale abuse of the subsidy system under EU rules.

Moreover, I believe Boris Johnson's £350 million a week figure is calculated and or incorporated from and with money that is being paid to farmers and landowners for doing nothing apart from owning and tenanting land.

It's taking awhile to get through to the Labour party, because they are incredulous that such money is being paid and to such a packs of hounds.

Sentiment Alec will be writ large in these matter and it's no good anybody being in denial.

As for means testing farmers and landowners, I must admit that is the first time I have sighted that suggestion.

 

[Orangehorse]

There is an article on James Dyson's farming enterprise in this week's Telegraph Magazine. Noted with a smile that despite his subsidies he has managed to turn a £4 million loss to just a £600,000 a year loss.
He does farm in an environmentally friendly way and has spent much £ on drainage, which is capital expenditure, but still.
If he can't make a profit why should the rest of us worry?

Labour MP Margaret Beckett set up the system that paid land owners the subsidy, much to farmers' astonishment.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

If he can't make a profit why should the rest of us worry?

Labour MP Margaret Beckett set up the system that paid land owners the subsidy, much to farmers' astonishment.

I suspect that he can, he just chooses not to.

That appalling Becket woman cost this country, the tax payers and those who farm, countless £millions through her pig-headed approach and her refusal to listen to simple common sense. I can't think of any government minister who has done more harm to British agriculture, certainly in living memory …. and there are those who'd vote in Labour?

Alec.

 

[Orangehorse]

I suspect that he can, he just chooses not to.

That appalling Becket woman cost this country, the tax payers and those who farm, countless £millions through her pig-headed approach and her refusal to listen to simple common sense. I can't think of any government minister who has done more harm to British agriculture, certainly in living memory …. and there are those who'd vote in Labour?

Alec.

Ah yes, little innocent me.

 

[Judgemental]

Mrs May's announcement today, concerning the much trailed £350 million BREXIT dividend a week for the NHS.

Clearly she and her colleagues are letting the agricultural industry down, gently so far as subsidies are concerned.

Forget farm subsidies in 2020 - 2024.

All farm subsidies will cease on 29 March 2019 in the context of the current format.

Largely because Mrs May is justifiably very angry with the House of Lords and their blocking of BREXIT legislation.

The interesting part is how few people in both the House of Commons and House of Lords, understand the 'feather bedding of farmers' and benefit handout subsidy system and mechanism, along with the majority of journalists.

 

[Molasses]

Mrs May's announcement today, concerning the much trailed £350 million BREXIT dividend a week for the NHS.
.

There is no such thing a the 'brexit dividend' - her own government and the ONS have stated many times that the country will be worse off.
Horrible to lie like that to the public :-(

 

[fburton]

Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on SkyNews...

Theresa May's Brexit dividend lie demolished in 3 minutes and 7 seconds

https://youtu.be/md1Wp62vKxw?t=1m34s

 

[Judgemental]

Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on SkyNews...

Theresa May's Brexit dividend lie demolished in 3 minutes and 7 seconds

https://youtu.be/md1Wp62vKxw?t=1m34s

You will note Paul Johnson uses the word PROMISES made to farmers.

Promises promises, there is not the slightest intention to honour those promises and there is no legal contract or any legislation in place.

What do a bunch of provincial farmers with a voting capacity of about 250k matter, believe me they are going to be sold down the river and that was the intention from the outset.

Does Mr Corbyn really support the ducal aristocratic estates etc, receiving free hand outs, of course not and hence the reason, he HM loyal opposition are wholly muted and that's why he is Mrs May's pussy cat.

Farm subsidies as we know them today, will cease on 29 March 2019

 

[Judgemental]

There is no such thing a the 'brexit dividend' - her own government and the ONS have stated many times that the country will be worse off.
Horrible to lie like that to the public :-(

The BREXIT DIVIDEND was and is largely represented by the side of Boris' bus.

I give you a caste iron guarantee that £350 million per week represents the money we are currently paying to 'feather bed' farmers.

Boris knew exactly which road the bus was taking. If you doubt what I am saying, go and ask him and look up what he said about farm subsidies during the REFERENDUM.

IS anybody with an ounce of common sense, really going to subscribe to packs of hounds such as the South Dorset Hunt, receiving farm subsidies beyond 29 March 2019.

It might have been a slight runner up until last week, until the House of Lords decided to make life difficult for the government.

 

[Judgemental]

Interesting, the President and Director General of The National Farmer's Union are meeting the Prime Minister on Tuesday.

The former being a keen hunting lady. Wonder if she will be discussing hunting with the PM.

No, probably not. Not a subject to which the PM has demonstrated the slightest loyalty.

What does spring to mind is, Munich and 1938, Neville Chamberlin and "peace in our time".

Chamberlin even stepped off the plane waving a piece of paper with the 'Chancellor's' signature.

Promises promises

 

[Judgemental]

Interesting, the President and Director General of The National Farmer's Union are meeting the Prime Minister on Tuesday.

The former being a keen hunting lady. Wonder if she will be discussing hunting with the PM.

No, probably not. Not a subject to which the PM has demonstrated the slightest loyalty.

What does spring to mind is, Munich and 1938, Neville Chamberlin and "peace in our time".

Chamberlin even stepped off the plane waving a piece of paper with the 'Chancellor's' signature.

Promises promises

Can't seem to find any mention in the press of any meeting as such, just a general reception for a gathering of MP and others.

As I thought the Prime Minister is far too canny to get mixed up with hunting union leaders.

Did I just say "hunting union leaders", now there's a first.

When it comes to anything to do with agriculture and hunting, it's time all the movers and shakers stopped trying to 'pull the wool'.

 

[Judgemental]

£14,652.31 paid to the South Dorset Hunt in Farm Subsidies for the years 2017 and 2018!

We have people queuing for Soup Kitchens, Sleeping Rough on the Streets, having to seek support to feed their families by going to FOOD BANKS and the state is paying the South Dorset Hunt £14,652.31.


CAP Payments Search

Cymraeg

CAP Payments Search Results Payment Details


Payment Details
Beneficiary Code:
Beneficiary Name: SOUTH DORSET HUNT
Town/ City: DORCHESTER
Postcode: DT2
Year: 2018


Measure Description Payment
Reimbursement of financial discipline £75.85
Basic payment scheme£5,242.57
Greening: practices beneficial for climate and environment £2,256.83

 

[honetpot]

So what, its claimed on the land and anyone who can prove they are entitled can submit a claim. It not one rule for one and one for the rest, I hope.

 

[Judgemental]

So what, its claimed on the land and anyone who can prove they are entitled can submit a claim. It not one rule for one and one for the rest, I hope.

So what, you say, "so what", that is sheer entitled bare faced arrogance, at a time when, the people of the UK have voted to leave the EU, in case you have not noticed. Unnecessary, unsustainable and manipulative farm subsidies granted by the EU. The rule and vote of the majority in leaving the EU, is undeniably in part is to abolish all EU Farm Subsidies. When the UK entered the EEC is 1972 the value of farm land was £500.00 per acre, it is now £10,000.00 per acre, entirely due to absurd inflated Farm Subsidies. The word absurd is all the more potent, when those subsidies are claimed wholly unnecessarily, by packs of hounds, who epitomise the sublime pointlessness of the monetary use, in terms of agrarian input. What little agrarian input may possibly exist, albeit the connection is tenuous, should be funded by the members of the hunt, who are having their past time and pleasure paid for by the poor tax payer.

 

[ester]

Good grief

 

[Judgemental]

I agree, "Good Grief". I assume that you concur with what are the primary facts that I have set out.

 

[honetpot]

So what, you say, "so what", that is sheer entitled bare faced arrogance, at a time when, the people of the UK have voted to leave the EU, in case you have not noticed. Unnecessary, unsustainable and manipulative farm subsidies granted by the EU. The rule and vote of the majority in leaving the EU, is undeniably in part is to abolish all EU Farm Subsidies. When the UK entered the EEC is 1972 the value of farm land was £500.00 per acre, it is now £10,000.00 per acre, entirely due to absurd inflated Farm Subsidies. The word absurd is all the more potent, when those subsidies are claimed wholly unnecessarily, by packs of hounds, who epitomise the sublime pointlessness of the monetary use, in terms of agrarian input. What little agrarian input may possibly exist, albeit the connection is tenuous, should be funded by the members of the hunt, who are having their past time and pleasure paid for by the poor tax payer.

I think you need to take a breath.
My big beef, about land, if I have one, is biomass energy, which gave grants to supposed in theory to use waste to produce energy, but reality maize crops are being grown, not to feed animals or people but to feed these units, mono culture on a huge scale. This is usually under contract so the contract workers care not about the land or the roads they trash. At the least the straw supplied for burning in power stations is waste in the traditional sense.
You make concession with the best intentions and someone will exploit it. I think the price of land has gone up not to do with subsides, but because so far we are not making more of it, and more people want to buy it, if as only somewhere to park their money, and you do not have to be extreemly weathy to want to do that.

 

[ester]

I agree, "Good Grief". I assume that you concur with what are the primary facts that I have set out.

One should never assume.