# CAP Payments to the South Dorset Hunt from the European Union



## Judgemental (12 May 2016)

Can anybody explain why a pack of hounds namely The South Dorset Hunt, is in receipt of payments (Benefits) from the European Union.

According to: http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/

Euros 117,287.98 were paid between 1999 and 2013

According to: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Search.aspx

£7,805.14 were paid in 2014

Obviously the Labour Party and their support for staying in the EU is clearly in favor of funding hunt's from state funds. Really!   

In a back handed way, I may be doing the hunt a favor, because it is my information that this specific fact is going to be flagged up by the media and in various debates running up to 23 June.

Therefore perhaps they should dig out the Anderson Shelters and Tin Helmets.


----------



## Maesfen (12 May 2016)

Perhaps farm subsidy type things.

I know of some packs in Ireland that have been  built their kennels with EU money.


----------



## Lanky Loll (12 May 2016)

Depending on how the kennels operates if they have land that is eligible for a subsidy why should they not apply and get it?

Measure Description	Payment
Single area payment scheme	£7,281.64
Agri-environment payments	£523.50


----------



## Lanky Loll (12 May 2016)

Also a simple search on the word hunt on there brings up several others if you sift through.


----------



## Judgemental (12 May 2016)

Maesfen said:



			Perhaps farm subsidy type things.

I know of some packs in Ireland that have been  built their kennels with EU money.
		
Click to expand...

Quite possibly but that is not quite the way the media will see it, that tax payers are funding a hunt. Frankly I am astonished that the registration and payment is made in the name of the hunt.


----------



## Judgemental (12 May 2016)

Lanky Loll said:



			Also a simple search on the word hunt on there brings up several others if you sift through.
		
Click to expand...

Goodness me you are right, all this taxpayer money being paid to hunts up and down the country. Quite astonishing. 

Indeed a total of £68,012 for 2014

But then, one can hardly have a referendum on the EU, without the inevitability of all this very interesting information coming to the surface. The Labour party who oppose hunting plainly support hunt's receiving money from Brussels. Weird. 

South Dorset 7,805
Belvoir 5,660
Burton 1,593
Chesire 1,173
East Devon 1,699
East Essex 1,143
East Kent 1,776
Fernie 7,435
Grafton 1,106
Ledbury 5,024
South and West Wilts 1,059
Dartmoor 3,083
Melton 12,523
Puckeridge 1,215
Quorn 4,764
Braes of Derwent 1,120
Eggesford 1,692
Cotswold 11,761
Warwickshire 1,232
West Norfolk 2,530
Woodland and Pytchley 1,052


----------



## popsdosh (12 May 2016)

Not just hunts though I think you will find , LACS also claims payments but maybe hidden under a different identity. Just found it nearly £200k which sort of dwarfs the others .So theres equality after all maybe.

 Most hunts own some land and coverts and indeed many are deemed to be conservation habitats that attract further funding why should they not.

It is indeed one of the fairer points of the system that anybody may claim as long as they have eligible land. One of the biggest beneficiaries is the RSPB (some £30+ million) and indeed several government and NGOs all have their fingers in the pie.


----------



## Judgemental (12 May 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Not just hunts though I think you will find , LACS also claims payments but maybe hidden under a different identity. Just found it nearly £200k which sort of dwarfs the others .So theres equality after all maybe.

 Most hunts own some land and coverts and indeed many are deemed to be conservation habitats that attract further funding why should they not.

It is indeed one of the fairer points of the system that anybody may claim as long as they have eligible land. One of the biggest beneficiaries is the RSPB (some £30+ million) and indeed several government and NGOs all have their fingers in the pie.
		
Click to expand...

This is all very interesting. I found £57,036.00 for the League Against Cruel Sports Ltd not sure where you found £200k? 

But no matter, what is important that vast sums of money are being paid by the poor unsuspecting tax payer. Which would be better spent on Hospitals, Housing, Schools, Roads and Infrastructure.

It would be otiose to suggest the tax payer is informed, or that they can enjoy all this land that attracts the Single Farm Payment etc. Because you and I know they cannot.

Nevertheless by 23 June, I am certain the poor tax payer on the 'Clapham Ominibus' will be better informed and will have these issues writ large, for them to decide whether In or Out of the EU is best for the country, the landed idle aristocratic gentry with inherited land, packs of hounds or the League.

Of course one of the most interesting features is that contained in a piece in The Guardian  of 2005. 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/23/eu.freedomofinformation


----------



## popsdosh (12 May 2016)

You may also be interested that the Dyson family pension fund receives about 2.5m every year under the guise of Beeswax farming


----------



## chillipup (12 May 2016)

popsdosh said:



			You may also be interested that the Dyson family pension fund receives about 2.5m every year under the guise of Beeswax farming
		
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it appears Dyson have bought out a huge amount of agricultural estates/farms and land in my area of North East Lincolnshire.


----------



## Countryman (12 May 2016)

I'm not sure what your point is JM? Yes, everybody with land is paid a subsidy in return for treating it how the EU demand. Everybody owning land includes farmers, pony owners, county councils, companies, charities, clubs, and yes hunts...


----------



## Judgemental (12 May 2016)

Countryman said:



			I'm not sure what your point is JM? Yes, everybody with land is paid a subsidy in return for treating it how the EU demand. Everybody owning land includes farmers, pony owners, county councils, companies, charities, clubs, and yes hunts...
		
Click to expand...

Because in the first instance I came across this information purely by chance.

It is clear the UK is going to vote to leave the EU.

You will doubtless say, "that is a very bold assertion".

I won't go into all my reasons other than to say, the British people are very annoyed by the number of outsiders, the government have brought in to tell us how to vote. Latterly the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a Canadian. In the words of Jacob Rees-Mogg MP,  "Carney should be immediately fired"

However more importantly, because of the information concerning Farm Subsidies, Benefits and Entitlements that are going to be the major focal talking point, by major politicians in the next few days.

I predict that should the Remain vote scrape home (which is very unlikely) Farm Subsidies, having been flagged up and the absurdities such as hunts receiving the Single Farm payment will, having been somewhat clandestine, will cease. Along with money for the very wealthy landed inherited titled estates.

Referendums traditionally throw up factors that folk will want to change.


----------



## honetpot (13 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Because in the first instance I came across this information purely by chance.

It is clear the UK is going to vote to leave the EU.

You will doubtless say, "that is a very bold assertion".

I won't go into all my reasons other than to say, the British people are very annoyed by the number of outsiders, the government have brought in to tell us how to vote. Latterly the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a Canadian. In the words of Jacob Rees-Mogg MP,  "Carney should be immediately fired"

However more importantly, because of the information concerning Farm Subsidies, Benefits and Entitlements that are going to be the major focal talking point, by major politicians in the next few days.

I predict that should the Remain vote scrape home (which is very unlikely) Farm Subsidies, having been flagged up and the absurdities such as hunts receiving the Single Farm payment will, having been somewhat clandestine, will cease. Along with money for the very wealthy landed inherited titled estates.

Referendums traditionally throw up factors that folk will want to change.
		
Click to expand...

You may have come by it by chance but its freely available information. Like it cost £38 to dispense a prescription, but of course to most people they think NHS prescriptions are free.


----------



## popsdosh (13 May 2016)

[QUOTE Because in the first instance I came across this information purely by chance.

It is clear the UK is going to vote to leave the EU.

You will doubtless say, "that is a very bold assertion".

I won't go into all my reasons other than to say, the British people are very annoyed by the number of outsiders, the government have brought in to tell us how to vote. Latterly the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a Canadian. In the words of Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, "Carney should be immediately fired"

However more importantly, because of the information concerning Farm Subsidies, Benefits and Entitlements that are going to be the major focal talking point, by major politicians in the next few days.

I predict that should the Remain vote scrape home (which is very unlikely) Farm Subsidies, having been flagged up and the absurdities such as hunts receiving the Single Farm payment will, having been somewhat clandestine, will cease. Along with money for the very wealthy landed inherited titled estates.

Referendums traditionally throw up factors that folk will want to change.
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...ropean-Union/page2#8gfCHceIgEpT7AMz.99/QUOTE]

Why ? is it absurd that hunts can claim that money they have to climb through the same hoops as everybody else who claims.
If you manage a parcel of land you should be entitled to the same payments as everybody else you all have to pass the active farmer test which is why your figures are somewhat out of date because as of 2015 the system has indeed changed making it more difficult to claim this money which in effect is a subsidy to everybody in the UK however that argument will be lost on you. I certainly wont keep producing food at a loss for the general public the last two years the only thing that has kept our business afloat is the payments and we are by no means a small farm either the general public want affordable food or start paying the real cost of it and the swings in production that lead to scarecity and eventually conflict .


----------



## jrp204 (13 May 2016)

There is nothing 'clandestine' about hunts claiming sfp. If they meet the criteria why shouldn't they? It is public information and easily found as is everyone else's payments. 
Not sure why it is such a big deal, I would have thought there are far worse issues to be dealt with. Even if we do leave, which I don't think we will. (This idea that this little island has power and influence on its own is somewhat deluded) farmers will either need subsidies to continue or food prices will need to rise.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (13 May 2016)

popsdosh said:



			You may also be interested that the Dyson family pension fund receives about 2.5m every year under the guise of Beeswax farming
		
Click to expand...

lol, what next ..... duck houses?


----------



## hobo (13 May 2016)

jrp204 said:



			There is nothing 'clandestine' about hunts claiming sfp. If they meet the criteria why shouldn't they? It is public information and easily found as is everyone else's payments. 
Not sure why it is such a big deal, I would have thought there are far worse issues to be dealt with. Even if we do leave, which I don't think we will. (This idea that this little island has power and influence on its own is somewhat deluded) farmers will either need subsidies to continue or food prices will need to rise.
		
Click to expand...

As above very well written post.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 May 2016)

Tell me J_M,  if you're able to separate yourself from your apparent outrage at the injustice,  as you see it,  what's your view on the fact that the CAP supports Spanish bullfighting?

Also,  and whilst I'm here,  wealthy you may be and able to buy your food at a price which would reflect the fact that there is no support for agriculture and food production,  but I can ASSURE you that a great many aren't and should there be no financial support which allows us to buy food that we can afford,  then the inability of the poor and those who aren't high earners would bring about devastation.  With third world diets,  which I'm imagining that your suggesting,  what then of the pressures upon our NH system?  Would you be happy to put your hand in your pocket and offer a voluntary and additional support?

I'm sorry mate,  but you don't 'alf spout some crap at times.  Why I remain fond of you remains a mystery! 

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (13 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Tell me J_M,  if you're able to separate yourself from your apparent outrage at the injustice,  as you see it,  what's your view on the fact that the CAP supports Spanish bullfighting?

Also,  and whilst I'm here,  wealthy you may be and able to buy your food at a price which would reflect the fact that there is no support for agriculture and food production,  but I can ASSURE you that a great many aren't and should there be no financial support which allows us to buy food that we can afford,  then the inability of the poor and those who aren't high earners would bring about devastation.  With third world diets,  which I'm imagining that your suggesting,  what then of the pressures upon our NH system?  Would you be happy to put your hand in your pocket and offer a voluntary and additional support?

I'm sorry mate,  but you don't 'alf spout some crap at times.  Why I remain fond of you remains a mystery! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec I always feel the Special Relationship betwixt East Anglia and the West Country is in good heart when you oppose my views.

After all everybody has to have a special relationship these days!

Firstly until I posted this new thread, this board was more or less inactive and very boring. So I can take comfort in my altruism of helping the advertising revenue of Horse or Hound.

Secondly in my original opening post I said:

" In a back handed way, I may be doing the hunt a favor, because it is my information that this specific fact is going to be flagged up by the media and in various debates running up to 23 June.

Therefore perhaps they should dig out the Anderson Shelters and Tin Helmets".

In my opinion I have done every Chairman and Hunt Secretary a great favor in that 'forewarned is forearmed' concerning the inevitable telephone calls and possibly being 'doorstepped' by the press.

This referendum is going to degenerate into the dirtiest electoral campaign on record and every possible means, of any group either In or Out is going to be brought into play.

The spin on hunting being subsidised and such as the existence of Food Banks and the inability of young people to afford a decent house etc is going to be writ large in the coming days and weeks. 

I bet every single hunt listed has had a 'heads up' in the preceding 24 hours and what ever is in store from the Press and Media. I hope they remember who put their coordinates on the radar screen.

Finally whether In or Out at the end of the day, when all this stuff about Hunt's and Wealthy Landowners being subsidised, post the election the whole population will have become aware of the feature. That will be an issue that will cause howls of anger, if we stay in the EU and the situation continues.

Forward thinking and preparation is essential.


----------



## Goldenstar (13 May 2016)

Whatever you think about the financial support the EU gives farmers you can't blame people for claiming the money the scheme allows them to .
The fault lies with the those who set up the system not those claiming the money .


----------



## FemelleReynard (13 May 2016)

As others have said, I can't see why it's an issue that hunts are claiming BPS payments? As previously mentioned, to claim BPS the claimant is required to jump through a large number of hoops and to undertake often onerous management techniques which the EU have put in to place. If the hunts are working to these stipulations, then there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be entitled to claim the payments. They are doing a very important job in preserving our environment and protecting our habitats, just like the farmers are, the only difference being that one is called a hunt, and the other a farm!

I take your point that it might cause a media frenzy if it comes out that Government and Tax Payers are 'paying' hunts, but I can't see them being able to stop this if the hunts can prove that they're making a valid claim (as in they're an active farmer, have relevant greening/countryside stewardship requirements in place, abiding by the 3 crop rule etc etc), without them stopping all direct payments to farmers? 

Likewise, as mentioned in this weeks Farmers Weekly, if we leave Europe, funding for farmers is likely to continue in some guise, so I highly doubt it will make much difference if we are in or out.


----------



## Countryman (13 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			The spin on hunting being subsidised and such as the existence of Food Banks and the inability of young people to afford a decent house etc is going to be writ large in the coming days and weeks. 

.
		
Click to expand...

If only! Actually hunting ought to be subsidised or at the very least not treated for tax purposes as a profit-making business, as they currently are, because they are not - in reality they're certainly 'non-profit' organisations and possibly even charities!

But hundreds of thousands of people, clubs, organisations and anyone with a bit of land gets this. It's not a question of hunts being subsidised.


----------



## Judgemental (13 May 2016)

Countryman said:



			But hundreds of thousands of people, clubs, organisations and anyone with a bit of land gets this. It's not a question of hunts being subsidised.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed 132,000 out of a population of 65,000,000 where's the equality in that.

Plainly the EU is for the have's as opposed to the have not's and the associated aristocratic inherited estates.

Which when fully distilled, receive 82% of the total Benefits/Entitlements paid by Brussels or 50,000 bearing in mind tenants have to pay 83% of their Euros to the titled estates.


----------



## Countryman (13 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Indeed 132,000 out of a population of 65,000,000,000 where's the equality in that.

Plainly the EU is for the have's as opposed to the have not's and the associated aristocratic inherited estates. Which when fully distilled, receive 82% of the total monies paid by Brussels or 50,000 bearing in mind tenants have to pay 83% of their Euros to the titled estates.
		
Click to expand...

JM you seem to be taking issue not with the subsidies per se, but with the system of land ownership in this country - which is a whole other discussion!


----------



## Judgemental (14 May 2016)

AJT92 said:



			I take your point that it might cause a media frenzy if it comes out that Government and Tax Payers are 'paying' hunts, but I can't see them being able to stop this if the hunts can prove that they're making a valid claim (as in they're an active farmer, have relevant greening/countryside stewardship requirements in place, abiding by the 3 crop rule etc etc), without them stopping all direct payments to farmers?
		
Click to expand...

Quite and that is the fact that will swing the Leave Campaign to Brexit. 

I guess 45,000,000 million will vote and I can't see the majority continuing to sign up to money being paid to packs of hounds by the EU.

I gather all the Blue Foxes in the Conservative party had no idea that the money was being paid, much less the rank and file of the Labour party.


----------



## Judgemental (14 May 2016)

Countryman said:



			JM you seem to be taking issue not with the subsidies per se, but with the system of land ownership in this country - which is a whole other discussion!
		
Click to expand...

I have no particular issue with land ownership as it stands, save for the poor down trodden tenants, paying 83% of their entitlements to titled folk, who have no need for the money and generally, have simply inherited the land. Land none of them could go out and buy or have ever earnt enough money of their own volition or imaginative enterprise but relied upon historical inheritance.

Money that would be better spend on Hospitals, Schools, Housing etc etc.

However in the majority of cases, tenants are their own worst enemies, because they are simply sycophantic toadies and deserve what they get, because they fail to stand up for themselves. Allowing themselves to be manipulated by 'The Parasites', namely agricultural estate agents.


----------



## hackneylass2 (14 May 2016)

'However in the majority of cases, tenants are their own worst enemies, because they are simply sycophantic toadies and deserve what they get, because they fail to stand up for themselves. Allowing themselves to be manipulated by 'The Parasites', namely agricultural estate agents. '

Perhaps because tenants don't want to become homeless, incomeless and reliant on benefits issued much closer to home?

I doubt there will be a huge furore over these legally obtained subsidies.

What I would like to know is this.  What system has or will our Govt put in place to replace the EU farming subsidy programme?  The silence has been deafening as to the effects of a Brexit to real people and how any losses, such as farm subsidies, would be replaced.


----------



## jrp204 (14 May 2016)

Wow JM, no chip on your shoulder then! We are tenants and whilst we love to have our own land we will never be able to buy it. But, it gives us an opportunity to farm in our own right and gives us security. Our landlord is a retired farmer who son doesn't want to farm. The entitlements are in our name.


----------



## popsdosh (14 May 2016)

jrp204 said:



			Wow JM, no chip on your shoulder then! We are tenants and whilst we love to have our own land we will never be able to buy it. But, it gives us an opportunity to farm in our own right and gives us security. Our landlord is a retired farmer who son doesn't want to farm. The entitlements are in our name.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly I would love to see JMs figures to justify that claim. JM you live in cloud cuckoo land most of the time it cost a lot more than the rent on an acre of land to finance purchasing it,oh but of course your other prediction was the collapse of agricultural land values something else that will never happen!


----------



## honetpot (14 May 2016)

I love the idea that landowners are 'titled folk'.
  All but a few had to sell off the land to cover death duties, land today is more likely to be owned by the Mormon church, companies that invest for pension/insurance companies, foreign investors, and some colleges and councils still own land. 
The bottom line is they all have a balance sheet and whoever invests in buying land or owns  wants to make money. Where I live huge amounts of good land has been used to grow crops for bio digesters to produce energy, daily I see the trailer bins taking chopped food to feed them. I think that's wrong but its the law on unintended consequences, producing biofuel is a very good idea. 
  Covering acres with solar panels, of very good growing land, seems bonkers but the people that own that land if they have a small acreage means they have a guaranteed income for the next 25 years.
  If there is a rule, there is a brain somewhere that will exploit it. I have a small amount of acreage and could claim payments but the paperwork involved is enormous and to be honest I do not want them dictating what I do with my home but I can understand why people would do it. I am not titled folk and neither was my stepfather or my brother in law, they worked bloomin hard out on a tractor a dawn and were good at their jobs, what they do in their spare time or what club they are member of should not affect the amount of money they can claim on they land they own or farm.
  You have to remember also when farmers were paid to grow ever bigger areas and ripped out hedges to make bigger fields, a lot of the hunts were the only one planting coverts and encouraged saving hedges, and walls. A lot of the meets are based on landmarks that have been there for hundreds of year and survived being tidied up in to nice flat ploughed land by a vested interest in hunting whether be by the tenant or landowner.


----------



## Goldenstar (15 May 2016)

No politician has had to make the case for agricultural support from the tax payer since I was young .
Anyone involved in the industry who thinks it will be business as usual after a brexit is going to suffer a huge shock it won't be the business as usual .
Politicians will have to sell the case for shovelling money at farmers and that's not going to be an easy sell with rest of the population .


----------



## popsdosh (15 May 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			No politician has had to make the case for agricultural support from the tax payer since I was young .
Anyone involved in the industry who thinks it will be business as usual after a brexit is going to suffer a huge shock it won't be the business as usual .
Politicians will have to sell the case for shovelling money at farmers and that's not going to be an easy sell with rest of the population .
		
Click to expand...

So the general public will be happy to have their food prices increase as that is the only consequence of withdrawing the support and maintaining agriculture within this country. We have a reasonable size operation here that in the last two years would have gone under without the support. Made a loss both years and its not because were inefficient we are in the top 10% on costings . Thats including the support and dont forget we are indeed taxed on the support so thats a chunk going straight back to source.
As I said earlier the payments do not support farmers they support cheap food in the shops!! thats the stark truth of it. Farmers are not registered charities no other industry would tolerate the return on investment we have to I know several farmers whose families have been and still are on income support. Farming is a way of life thats why we accept the poor financial returns.


----------



## Goldenstar (15 May 2016)

After a brexit We have the choice to import food from wherever we chose yes food prices will rise I am quite sure of that but but might a politician think that's an price worth paying not to have to sell the idea of giving cash to people with range rovers to a sceptical public .


----------



## Judgemental (15 May 2016)

jrp204 said:



			Wow JM, no chip on your shoulder then! We are tenants and whilst we love to have our own land we will never be able to buy it. But, it gives us an opportunity to farm in our own right and gives us security. Our landlord is a retired farmer who son doesn't want to farm. The entitlements are in our name.
		
Click to expand...

JRP there is one thing that does not happen on this forum and that is personal abuse. I am merely a messenger and in the last few days, have been proved entirely correct. I shall make allowances for you, because you probably live west of the Tamar and well, what can one say.... poor souls, probably all that granite giving off radioactive gas.   

Trying to reply to all the posts is difficult. 

However Hackney Lass, good grief we agree on something. Your last post and paragraph. What is going to happen. My sources indicate that because of the unfairness in distribution of EU Farm Payments, following the Vote, the likelihood of such payment being kicked into the long grass is almost certain.

I think Goldenstar mentioned new Range Rovers.

Look at the piece in the Daily Express of yesterday. Notwithstanding Dodgy Dave's failed attempt, to get a Repeal of the Hunting act as a means of trying to pretend he had honored his electoral promises.

Now it is clear he has a 'resigning reason' conflict of interests concerning money from the EU being paid to his immediate family.

There were nearly 500 adverse comments attached (when I last looked) to the following link suggesting that money from the EU to the already rich with inherited wealth, was comprehensively unacceptable  

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/67...avid-reginald-sheffield-millions-eu-subsidies

Wait till the Labour party have collectively read, met and understood the issue, I predict the proverbial sh.t will hit the fan spectacularly. Believe me it will.

Look at one of the Express' comments:

" Amazingly the taxpayer-funded programme is handing over hundreds of millions of pounds of our cash to rich aristocrats, fox hunting associations and local councils".

"Fox Hunting Associations", interesting my experience of Fox Hunting Associations are to my knowledge, normally found in the bedroom!


----------



## conniegirl (15 May 2016)

My sister currently lives in the Falkland Islands, there is no farming subsidies over there and the vast majority of thier food has to be imported, she currently pays £4.50 for a punnet of cherry tomatoes and £3.70 for a cucumber!
She paid £1.20 for a single peach!
Her weekly shop for a single person is well over £100! So god help anyone with a family of 4!

That is the sort of prices britain will face should we get rid of the farming subsidies! 
Whilst you JM may be able to afford that the vast majority of the population cannot!


----------



## Judgemental (15 May 2016)

conniegirl said:



			My sister currently lives in the Falkland Islands, there is no farming subsidies over there and the vast majority of thier food has to be imported, she currently pays £4.50 for a punnet of cherry tomatoes and £3.70 for a cucumber!
She paid £1.20 for a single peach!
Her weekly shop for a single person is well over £100! So god help anyone with a family of 4!

That is the sort of prices britain will face should we get rid of the farming subsidies! 
Whilst you JM may be able to afford that the vast majority of the population cannot!
		
Click to expand...

The Falkland Islands hardly in our geographical or political area. What about fish?

I fear your comparison is not ideal the Falklands are 8,064 miles from the UK

I know their fish for retail consumption is cheapest anywhere in the South Atlantic. Therefore there is an averaging and I am told there are no restrictions on on-farm slaughtering of mutton and lamb for ex-farm sale, or beef for that matter. 

Similarly our fishing fleet will be allowed to fish properly without the EU with a massive expansion in the number of vessels. Furthermore the Spanish will be prevented from fishing our inshore waters which they have a program to implement very shortly.

The price of food will remain exactly the same according to all the major supermarkets (who will not engage in the debate) the same without interference concerning bent cucumbers and bananas for example.


----------



## conniegirl (15 May 2016)

You honestly think that cheap fish balances out the fact that vegetables of all forms (bent or not) are ludicrously expensive, the fact that you cannot get beef or pork In The shops on a regular basis and when they do come in they are beyond the reach of most people finances, that fruit is restiricted when it does become available ( they had a shipment of bananas the other week, £8 a bunch and maximum 2 bunches per household), heck even fresh milk (not UHT) is only obtainable direct from the farm and only if the farmer likes you!
Lamb is unobtainable out there, mutton is obtainable but costs the same as over here, beef is not farmed over there other than a few farms who keep cows for milk (and not on the scale of even small farms over here, we are talking 2 or 3 cows)
The Falklands are British overseas territories so well within our political remit and influence. However there is no farming subsidies so farmers struggle.

I can very much see that happening over here, most of the food in supermarkets is imported, without trade agreements in place the cost to import that food will increase substantially and more fool you if you think the supermarkets won't pass that increase on to the consumer!
Heck milk already costs more to produce than it can be sold for and dairy farms are going out of business every day.
Remove the subsidies and 90% of farmers in the uk will go out of business, the. We will have to rely on imported goods for the vast majority of our food stuffs! Ever heard of captive markets? That is what we will become if we cannot produce our own food!


----------



## Judgemental (15 May 2016)

conniegirl said:



			You honestly think that cheap fish balances out the fact that vegetables of all forms (bent or not) are ludicrously expensive, the fact that you cannot get beef or pork In The shops on a regular basis and when they do come in they are beyond the reach of most people finances, that fruit is restiricted when it does become available ( they had a shipment of bananas the other week, £8 a bunch and maximum 2 bunches per household), heck even fresh milk (not UHT) is only obtainable direct from the farm and only if the farmer likes you!
Lamb is unobtainable out there, mutton is obtainable but costs the same as over here, beef is not farmed over there other than a few farms who keep cows for milk (and not on the scale of even small farms over here, we are talking 2 or 3 cows)
The Falklands are British overseas territories so well within our political remit and influence. However there is no farming subsidies so farmers struggle.

I can very much see that happening over here, most of the food in supermarkets is imported, without trade agreements in place the cost to import that food will increase substantially and more fool you if you think the supermarkets won't pass that increase on to the consumer!
Heck milk already costs more to produce than it can be sold for and dairy farms are going out of business every day.
Remove the subsidies and 90% of farmers in the uk will go out of business, the. We will have to rely on imported goods for the vast majority of our food stuffs! Ever heard of captive markets? That is what we will become if we cannot produce our own food!
		
Click to expand...

The Falkland Islands 8000 miles from the UK what's the relevance? 

Population 2932 in the 2012 census. 

So what, I don't get your argument? 

The UK has a population of 65 million and rapidly rising if we stay in the EU. 

Perhaps we could ship some of these migrants to the Falklands. Although I can't see any natives of the EU member countries  wanting to reside in the Falklands.


----------



## Goldenstar (15 May 2016)

You can't compare the Falkland Islands to the UK .
The climate there makes the production of fresh produce hard so it has to be brought from a vast distance away adding huge transport costs.
After  Brexit the Uk would still in the same distance from say Spain and they still would be producing huge quantities of tomatoes etc that they needed to see.

JM I said range rovers not new range rovers btw .


----------



## Christmas Crumpet (15 May 2016)

FYI - the South Dorset hunt farm the land next to their kennels - members of the hunting farming community do this hence why they get subsidies. Simple!!!


----------



## Judgemental (15 May 2016)

carolineb said:



			FYI - the South Dorset hunt farm the land next to their kennels - members of the hunting farming community do this hence why they get subsidies. Simple!!!
		
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting comment. Looking at Google Earth, that would appear to be arable farming.

So who actually does the farming, physically?

Who actually owns the land?  

Frankly you may not welcome this attention or questions. However a hunt is clearly applying for and accepting state hand outs, i.e. tax payers money, to sustain their operations. Subsidies no, entitlements no, benefits in exactly the same way as unemployment benefit is paid. The information is now clearly published by DEFRA, so any member of the public is entitled to inquire, as to the exact detail.

As I said in an earlier post, I was doing the hunt a favor by giving a 'heads up' that it was highly likely this whole subject could become a matter of national interest by 23 June and post that date, irrespective of the outcome. 

You only have to look at the piece in the Daily Express.

As I also said, the proverbial sh.t is going to hit the fan.

In my experience, I would be very concerned about the position of the Labour Party who, in my opinion do not understand the detail.  Bearing in mind they want to stay in the EU and when they do understand, all hell is going to break loose, irrespective of the IN or OUT camps. Because the Labour party will be made to feel very foolish.


----------



## Goldenstar (15 May 2016)

I simply don't get your point JM , as long as the money is being claimed within the rules what's the issue ?


----------



## jrp204 (15 May 2016)

"JRP there is one thing that does not happen on this forum and that is personal abuse. I am merely a messenger and in the last few days, have been proved entirely correct. I shall make allowances for you, because you probably live west of the Tamar and well, what can one say.... poor souls, probably all that granite giving off radioactive gas. "

No personal abuse went on, it was a statement 'no chip on your shoulder', take it how you like.
As a messenger you obviously have a huge amount of time on your hands as there appears to be a lot of reading and research going on, I like many who claim a SFP unfortunately are not blessed with being able to spend time doing what you do, we are trying to earn a living wage, and in many instances failing whilst still producing food that you put in your mouth. 
You are quite right I do live to the west of the Tamar and am incredibly proud of my Cornish roots. Sorry to say we don't live on granite so no radon. I can manage insanity all on my own, think a lot of farmers will agree with that one.


----------



## Judgemental (15 May 2016)

jrp204 said:



			"JRP there is one thing that does not happen on this forum and that is personal abuse. I am merely a messenger and in the last few days, have been proved entirely correct. I shall make allowances for you, because you probably live west of the Tamar and well, what can one say.... poor souls, probably all that granite giving off radioactive gas. "

No personal abuse went on, it was a statement 'no chip on your shoulder', take it how you like.
As a messenger you obviously have a huge amount of time on your hands as there appears to be a lot of reading and research going on, I like many who claim a SFP unfortunately are not blessed with being able to spend time doing what you do, we are trying to earn a living wage, and in many instances failing whilst still producing food that you put in your mouth. 
You are quite right I do live to the west of the Tamar and am incredibly proud of my Cornish roots. Sorry to say we don't live on granite so no radon. I can manage insanity all on my own, think a lot of farmers will agree with that one.
		
Click to expand...

In response to you and Goldenstar, you just don't get it do you.

We are in a campaign, a dirty one at that, for a very important referendum and the press and media are buzzing around looking for stories.

If you have not read it, have a look at the piece in the Daily Express if you have not already done so.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/67...avid-reginald-sheffield-millions-eu-subsidies

Scroll to the bottom and have a look to the comments - over 500 of the angriest comments I have ever seen on the subject and fair reflection of the thinking, of the average man in the street who is not fortunate enough to own land whether inherited or not, or tenanted.

Those are people up and down the country who I dare say, would like a slice of the Single Farm Payment Pie as they have difficulty in buying a house etc.

Whether you like it or not, you are lumped in with the aristocratic inherited wealth. Which is perfectly legal to claim the SFP but is morally repugnant. 

If one takes state money for nothing, you can bet your life, especially hunts will be of considerable interest.

It is wholly naive to think otherwise.

That piece in the Express and I believe the Guardian's recently, will set of a chain reaction amongst the media.

In other words, "there's a story here chaps, make hay whilst the sun shines".


----------



## jrp204 (15 May 2016)

Do you know what, if Joe Public wants to get SFP, it's simple. Either buy some land or do what we do, work god damn hard and rent some. It's not rocket science!! People need to eat, they expect food to be available when they want it regardless of where it comes from. I would happily not claim SFP if we got a fair market price. It is not a gift it is a payment to maintain parts of the countryside for which we have to jump through hoops. So, either get your own land and claim it or pay a fair market price for your food. Simple.
JM, I am butting out of this, we will not agree and I haven't got the time or the energy to waste on this. 
Good choice of name, guess it wasn't going to be 'Tolerance'


----------



## Goldenstar (15 May 2016)

JM and you don't get my point if the money is legally claimed why should anyone get dragged into anything .
The EU referendum is the most important thing I will vote on on the rest of my life I simply can't imagine why any one would think that the fact some hunts lease or own land that is farmed would in any way influence anyones view on how they should vote .
It's a complete irrelevance .


----------



## Judgemental (16 May 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			JM and you don't get my point if the money is legally claimed why should anyone get dragged into anything .
The EU referendum is the most important thing I will vote on on the rest of my life I simply can't imagine why any one would think that the fact some hunts lease or own land that is farmed would in any way influence anyones view on how they should vote .
It's a complete irrelevance .
		
Click to expand...

Because hunting is a highly contentious issue at the best of times and the vast majority of the population, do not support their tax payers money going to prop up packs of hounds.  Packs of hounds that are run by comparatively very wealthy people. If you look at the comments in the Express, of which there are over 600, you will find a staggering level of hatred and vicious invective directed to such people in every single comment. Not because they are seen to have anything to do with hunting but because they are already wealthy, with inherited wealth and are getting handouts of state tax payers money for do nothing.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 May 2016)

But that's nothing to with hunting .
It's caused by the ridiculous way the EU has destroyed the market within agriculture I completely fail to understand why this is an issue .
People who hate other people will do so whatever the reason those people posting venom well that's just bitter people it's hunts are farming they need to be treated like everyone else who are farming .
Hunting is not very near the top on consisenous issues for most people.
Most of us get exercised about much more serious issues .


----------



## Judgemental (16 May 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			But that's nothing to with hunting .
It's caused by the ridiculous way the EU has destroyed the market within agriculture I completely fail to understand why this is an issue .
People who hate other people will do so whatever the reason those people posting venom well that's just bitter people it's hunts are farming they need to be treated like everyone else who are farming .
Hunting is not very near the top on consisenous issues for most people.
Most of us get exercised about much more serious issues .
		
Click to expand...

Oh, it all goes hand in hand with the overall fabric of agricultural society. For example Piddletrenthide Farms right in the middle of the South Dorset Country, received £181,410.62 in EU payments in 2014 according to the DEFRA Website. Why shouldn't everybody in the UK have a slice of the EU Farm Benefits?


----------



## jrp204 (16 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Why shouldn't everybody in the UK have a slice of the EU Farm Benefits?
		
Click to expand...

They are, they get cheap food. 

(I know, I am now getting back to work, that really is my last post on this, I will bite no more!)


----------



## Judgemental (16 May 2016)

jrp204 said:



			They are, they get cheap food. 

(I know, I am now getting back to work, that really is my last post on this, I will bite no more!)
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish, that what you and your kind like to kid yourselves with and the propaganda that is peddled by all those in receipt of state handouts.


----------



## jrp204 (16 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			"" your kind"" ?????? Wow, that ole' chip 'aint weighing down then?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Judgemental (16 May 2016)

jrp204 said:





Judgemental said:



			"" your kind"" ?????? Wow, that ole' chip 'aint weighing down then?
		
Click to expand...

Thought you had retired from the field of play. No matter plenty of stamina here. 

Others who Joust on this forum know that I am an inveterate plagiarist but I always quote my source. In this case it is the Daily Express of today and one of the many adverse comments (currently 613) concerning EU Benefits to landowners etc

In passing you remarked yesterday that I obviously had plenty of time. Well is took me precisely 45 seconds to download all the detail from DEFRA concerning all the Dukes, Duchesses, Lords Ladies, Earls etc. Plus all others, which category presumably you come into, the poor down trodden farmer?    

I say, I don't suppose you are too happy about Cameron eating Cornish Pasties, made in Leeds. Bet that touched a raw nerve. What about all these pregnant Poles in the South West as well.

When supping with the devil always have a long spoon.    

"The Patriot said in The Daily Express
conman cameron, aka the grim reaper admitted himself that he owns a small field in Lincolnshire, must be next to sams dad because camerons field small field is 5,000 acres, what with the family trusts in tax havens and private companies all over the place is camerons small field of 5,000 acres receiving any cap payments and what is on that small field of 5,000 acres is it wind turbines is arable is it grass or is it just for fox hunting, so many secrets so many skeletons from a dead man walking, we know all about call me dave and the book but we should know that th pm is not really slumming it on holiday in cornwall munching on pasties made in leeds where he reckons he buys them, see its all lies and deceit, he got re elected on lies and deceit, you the poor people that is what he calls you, the poor people, you the poor people make him rich, you the poor he makes you poor and gives you food banks and welfare cuts and mas migration enriching you with immigrants, gropers and no hopers, 400 poles were made redundant a a meat factory in the south west, now they are on the dole the women are all pregnant and they are in groups stealing from all the charity shops we are so blessed us poor people to be enriched with murderers and rapists and the world keeps quiet until after the referendum, vote freedom vote leave your life depends on it".
		
Click to expand...


----------



## popsdosh (16 May 2016)

jrp204 said:





Judgemental said:



			"" your kind"" ?????? Wow, that ole' chip 'aint weighing down then?
		
Click to expand...

  some just havent got the brain they like to make out they have.

The silence of the clamour to do away with SFP_is deafening lol.  Judgemental you are relying on old figures on a site that is not even an official one. There is another more up to date site(im sure you can find it with googles help) that is official that is run by government. Your figures are pre the last renegotiation of the CAP so well out of line with current practice. It would also be nice to hear when we may receive last years payment as it may make a small dent in our .5million overdraft so we can feed the ungrateful hoards
However indeed there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. Trans World Airways  Too comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Judgemental (16 May 2016)

popsdosh said:





jrp204 said:



  some just havent got the brain they like to make out they have.

The silence of the clamour to do away with SFP_is deafening lol.  Judgemental you are relying on old figures on a site that is not even an official one. There is another more up to date site(im sure you can find it with googles help) that is official that is run by government. Your figures are pre the last renegotiation of the CAP so well out of line with current practice. It would also be nice to hear when we may receive last years payment as it may make a small dent in our .5million overdraft so we can feed the ungrateful hoards
However indeed there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. Trans World Airways  Too comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

I gather my figures from http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/ which as far as I am aware is the most up to date DEFRA Website showing the most recently available figures, up to October 2014.

If you know of another with 2015, I would be very interested.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Goldenstar (16 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Oh, it all goes hand in hand with the overall fabric of agricultural society. For example Piddletrenthide Farms right in the middle of the South Dorset Country, received £181,410.62 in EU payments in 2014 according to the DEFRA Website. Why shouldn't everybody in the UK have a slice of the EU Farm Benefits?
		
Click to expand...

Because that's not how the system works at the moment , that's nothing to with hunting what so ever .
At the moment the EU drives how agriculture is supported .
If and it's a big if we vote for a brexit then it will all be up for discussion ,our next elected government could support ( or not support ) agriculture in any way it chose .


----------



## hobo (16 May 2016)

I am quite good at finishing a post by adding my bit so I think a 

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL is in order.


----------



## popsdosh (16 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Oh, it all goes hand in hand with the overall fabric of agricultural society. For example Piddletrenthide Farms right in the middle of the South Dorset Country, received £181,410.62 in EU payments in 2014 according to the DEFRA Website. Why shouldn't everybody in the UK have a slice of the EU Farm Benefits?
		
Click to expand...

This is what you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding they all DO!


----------



## Orangehorse (17 May 2016)

The SFP is no more, it is now the Basic Payment.  It is a payment to all farmers in the EU to keep them on the land and farming and growing food, as we are certainly not making any profits at the moment.  Before the EU farmers in the UK were getting Deficiency Payments, which effectively put a bottom in the market, again to keep people on the land.

The weird way the payments were made - giving the money to the landowners rather than just the farmer trying to make a living from the land - was all thanks to Mrs. margaret Bennett who was the Labour Minister of Agriculture at the time.  Everyone was shaking their head in wonder but hence the way that anyone owning land, including hunts of course, could claim the payments.

Incidentally, the payments are a subsidy for the consumers rather than the farmers to kee the price of food down and farmers producing food rather than importing it all from countries where there are lower costs of production.


----------



## Judgemental (18 May 2016)

carolineb said:



			FYI - the South Dorset hunt farm the land next to their kennels - members of the hunting farming community do this hence why they get subsidies. Simple!!!
		
Click to expand...

Carolineb I don't believe I saw your response to my question:

That is a very interesting comment. Looking at Google Earth, that would appear to be arable farming.

So who actually does the farming, physically?

Who actually owns the land? 

Is it owned by the hunt or a landlord and if the latter, how much of the £7,805.00 is paid to the landlord.


----------



## Orangehorse (19 May 2016)

No way to find out.  You can look up all the details, but every landlord/tenant would have their own arrangement.  We own land and we tenant land, and sometimes the landlord has the payment and sometimes we, as the farmer, gets the payment.
Obviously the rent is adjusted.

As for who farms the hunt's land - again there is no way to find out.  Probably pay a contractor.  There is a slight possibility that a farmer might just incorporate it into his work, but he would still have to receive some money for fuel, fertiliser, sprays, etc.


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

popsdosh said:





jrp204 said:



  some just havent got the brain they like to make out they have.

The silence of the clamour to do away with SFP_is deafening lol.  Judgemental you are relying on old figures on a site that is not even an official one. There is another more up to date site(im sure you can find it with googles help) that is official that is run by government. Your figures are pre the last renegotiation of the CAP so well out of line with current practice. It would also be nice to hear when we may receive last years payment as it may make a small dent in our .5million overdraft so we can feed the ungrateful hoards
However indeed there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. Trans World Airways  Too comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

Popdosh what a splendid person you are pointing out the above, herewith the latest.

                       2014                                       2015  

South Dorset £7,805                                  £6,482.52 
Belvoir £5,660                                           £5,031.86
Burton  £1,593                                          £1,324.85
Cheshire £1,173                                        £   984.84
East Devon £1,699                                    £1,403.67
East Essex £1,143                                       ?
East Kent  £1,776                                      £1,498.76
Fernie £7,435                                            £8,691.63
Grafton £1,106                                            ?
Ledbury£5,024                                         £4,436.86
South and West Wilts £1,059                       ?
Dartmoor £3,083                                      £1,894.67 
Melton £12,523                                        £11,457.36
Puckeridge £1,215                                      ?
Quorn £4,764                                           £10,713.11 
Braes of Derwent £1,120                             ?
Eggesford £1,692                                     £1,426.46 
Cotswold £11,761                                    £10,713.11
Warwickshire £1,232                                £1,033.69
West Norfolk £2,530                                £1,113.75
Woodland and Pytchley £1,052                    ?
Suffolk  ?                                                £1,172.43

TOTAL £68,012.00                                   £60,562.86
		
Click to expand...


----------



## popsdosh (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:





popsdosh said:



			Popdosh what a splendid person you are pointing out the above, herewith the latest.

                       2014                                       2015  

South Dorset £7,805                                  £6,482.52 
Belvoir £5,660                                           £5,031.86
Burton  £1,593                                          £1,324.85
Cheshire £1,173                                        £   984.84
East Devon £1,699                                    £1,403.67
East Essex £1,143                                       ?
East Kent  £1,776                                      £1,498.76
Fernie £7,435                                            £8,691.63
Grafton £1,106                                            ?
Ledbury£5,024                                         £4,436.86
South and West Wilts £1,059                       ?
Dartmoor £3,083                                      £1,894.67 
Melton £12,523                                        £11,457.36
Puckeridge £1,215                                      ?
Quorn £4,764                                           £10,713.11 
Braes of Derwent £1,120                             ?
Eggesford £1,692                                     £1,426.46 
Cotswold £11,761                                    £10,713.11
Warwickshire £1,232                                £1,033.69
West Norfolk £2,530                                £1,113.75
Woodland and Pytchley £1,052                    ?
Suffolk  ?                                                £1,172.43

TOTAL £68,012.00                                   £60,562.86
		
Click to expand...

For the balance to be fair why is the melton in there as its 20% of the Total that is not a hunt!

I really dont see what you are trying to prove in the overall scheme of things that is a minute percentage of the total budget most commercial farms are receiving well in excess of the total as an individual. We receive more than 3x that total and funnily enough our landlord receives none of it. We pay a commercial rent for the land we farm and the entitlements to payments belong to us and if we so wished we could sell them at any time leaving the land without them. This the major flaw in your argument in the huge majority of cases the entitlement to claim belongs to the person farming the land.

I think you have a totally distorted and perverse view of how the system works. I dont mind how you wish to pay for your food at the real cost of production but either we need to be in an open market or one where farming is subsidised but I for one will not be producing food without one or the other im not a registered charity.  Perhaps you need to remember that every time you go to the supermarket you are no better than the poor people who have to rely on food banks as you are receiving government handouts in the form of cheap food,does it not hurt your pride!! funnily enough the Toffs receive that benefit as well! as you. Oh and us farmers so we get two lots of benefits! Get real.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ester (21 May 2016)

I don't understand why this is news? Surely anyone with land claims SFP etc? Why would hunts not??


----------



## popsdosh (21 May 2016)

ester said:



			I don't understand why this is news? Surely anyone with land claims SFP etc? Why would hunts not??
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!! and I havent seen JMs prediction come to fruition yet as it will make no impact on the outcome


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

popsdosh said:





Judgemental said:



			For the balance to be fair why is the melton in there as its 20% of the Total that is not a hunt!

I really dont see what you are trying to prove in the overall scheme of things that is a minute percentage of the total budget most commercial farms are receiving well in excess of the total as an individual. We receive more than 3x that total and funnily enough our landlord receives none of it. We pay a commercial rent for the land we farm and the entitlements to payments belong to us and if we so wished we could sell them at any time leaving the land without them. This the major flaw in your argument in the huge majority of cases the entitlement to claim belongs to the person farming the land.

I think you have a totally distorted and perverse view of how the system works. I dont mind how you wish to pay for your food at the real cost of production but either we need to be in an open market or one where farming is subsidised but I for one will not be producing food without one or the other im not a registered charity.  Perhaps you need to remember that every time you go to the supermarket you are no better than the poor people who have to rely on food banks as you are receiving government handouts in the form of cheap food,does it not hurt your pride!! funnily enough the Toffs receive that benefit as well! as you. Oh and us farmers so we get two lots of benefits! Get real.
		
Click to expand...

Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority)  be propped up by the tax payer. 

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.  

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling &#8364;594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system
		
Click to expand...


----------



## popsdosh (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:





popsdosh said:



			Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority)  be propped up by the tax payer. 

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.  

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling &#8364;594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system
		
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea what the Melton hunt club is then its certainly not a hunt!

I think you meant you are subsidised on this scale!!!
I suppose to the other point it depends if you want to have food on the table or not . Its a bit more critical than some other industries. As I said before I know farming families that are on income support as well getting subsidies so their children dont get privately educated .

Funnily enough the majority of the general public understand what you clearly cannot get your head around so I think a backlash is highly unlikely.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Maesfen (21 May 2016)

You picked the right user name, Judgemental.


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

popsdosh said:





Judgemental said:



			You obviously have no idea what the Melton hunt club is then its certainly not a hunt!
		
Click to expand...

Well hold hard there. If the Melton Hunt Club is not a hunt, what and were is all this land that appears to be eligible and qualifies for the SFP or Benefit?

The website http://www.melton-hunt-club.org.uk/ seems fairly closely orientated to hunting.

Do please explain and I think you had better be clear about the land involved.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ester (21 May 2016)

I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

ester said:



			I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?
		
Click to expand...

The Benefits, they are not subsidies.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			The Benefits, they are not subsidies.
		
Click to expand...

Well, take a look further at charitable organisations and other non farming land owners.

One owning land adjacent to my yard only last year obtained in excess of 70k, only a very small part of the land claimed for is grazing land,  the rest is heathland and woodland. None of tge money obtained has been used for upkeep, they also get various grants too, totalling far more than the CAP figure......


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.

Who actually owns the land?  

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Presumably the person(s) who fill in the SFP scheme applications.  Your previous claims that various Packs are making the claims for themselves seems curious,  unless those Packs are actively involved in farming.  

Are the areas of land under your inspection owned and farmed by individual Packs,  or by those who are members?

Alec.


----------



## ester (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			The Benefits, they are not subsidies.
		
Click to expand...

my question still stands whatever the terminology.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2016)

ester said:



			I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?
		
Click to expand...




Judgemental said:



			The Benefits, they are not subsidies.
		
Click to expand...

And it seems that your question remains unanswered.

Alec.


----------



## ester (21 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			And it seems that your question remains unanswered.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Yet I love a correction with some thoroughly dodgy grammar included


----------



## Goldenstar (21 May 2016)

Judgemental said:





popsdosh said:



			Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority)  be propped up by the tax payer. 

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.  

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling 594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who lives in the countryside or vaguely near it could not know that agriculture is heavily supported .
In fact you would have to lived in a sealed cellar for the last fifty years not to know but I still don't understand what it's got to do with hunting .
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

Goldenstar said:





Judgemental said:



			I don't think anyone who lives in the countryside or vaguely near it could not know that agriculture is heavily supported .
In fact you would have to lived in a sealed cellar for the last fifty years not to know but I still don't understand what it's got to do with hunting .
		
Click to expand...

You are making my point for me most succinctly.

The issue is that the majority of folk, i.e. urban dwellers have very little or no idea at all about the benefits and handouts to wealthy landowners and farmers for doing nothing, in most cases having inherited the land.

The whole population has the right to know and understand the issue, in order to make up their minds as to whether or not we remain in the EU.

Of course if we vote OUT it will be the most effective way of getting rid of Cameron.

As for Osborne's fatuous view house prices will fall. From what I have heard and read many will be delighted, because there are millions who cannot afford a house at current prices.

Those two players are merely inexperienced Public School boys, (Eton) who have never known where the next meal is coming from,  with no experience of running a business, failing to do a job that either a mature man or woman, should be in the post of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Overread (21 May 2016)

It's my understanding that CAP payments are not just "for doing thing" indeed there are strict protocols and terms and conditions in order to be eligible for such payments are made. In fact the paperwork side has even destroyed some schemes nearly - the new system that replaces the higher and lower level stewardship scheme payment has had a bad reception because of the complex application process. Thus farmers were either accepting a loss or turning land back into agricultural production (assuming HLS/ELS schemes were finished from the previous term). 


Certainly there are ways to trick the system and many report that there isn't sufficient monitoring to ensure that farmers are doing what they say they are and that they are doing the correct form of management for their land. Of course if you are caught breaking the conditions you get fined and lose out on the further payments from that scheme - so there are penalties even if there isn't the support structure to ensure everyone is playing ball. 



Personally I feel that, at least in so far as conservation payment schemes are concerned, there is every right to have them. Land owners (be they new purchases or inheritors) require land to make income for them; very few people can afford to let land go fallow. As such paying farmers and land owners (inc hunts ) to take land out of production and into habitat is a valuable element; at least if you want the countryside to retain viable populations of wildlife (barring rats). 


Other payment and grant schemes are questionable as to their overall viability. I know many in conservation who are opposed to hillfarmers getting grants for sheep farming. Not because they dislike sheep farmers; but because sheep farming is highly destructive to habitats and the widespread use of the highlands means that vast swaths of forest are lost*. When matched against the fact that there is basically no money in sheepfarming without subsidies one has to wonder if its sensible in the long run.
Personally I'd rather see the money spent to have those same farmers abandon the sheep and focus on rewilding and other uses of the land that are not purely driven by the desire to produce**. 



*a point raised in the floods late last year in that the lack of a forest canopy results a faster surface flow and thus rivers get more rainwater entering them all at once resulting in more flooding. 

**post WWII we have a series of generations of farmer who were encouraged and pushed and driven to produce more and more produce. To both ensure the country was less reliant upon imports and also to help produce export to pay off war debts.


----------



## ycbm (21 May 2016)

It's my understanding that CAP payments are not just "for doing nothing"
		
Click to expand...


Overread I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She gives the use of it to a local farmer who grazes his sheep in return for making the hay she feeds her horses, and she banks the CAP single payment herself. It's an astonishing amount of money for owning less than a hundred acres.

I have a  neighbour who owns 150 acres of high ground, puts a few sheep up there for a few weeks a year but in substance really only farms his more productive lowland land, and is paid many  thousands for the sheep farming of the higher land. Pretty much as close to money for nothing as you can get.


----------



## Overread (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			Overead I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She rents it to a local farmer who grazed his sheep, and she banks the CAP single payment herself.
		
Click to expand...

Aye as I said there are ways to take advantage of the system and I only lightly know the conservation side of CAPs not the whole selection of payments on offer.
On the surface this sounds like an easy winner; however on the flipside I suspect there could be more to it than she has made you possibly aware? There might be some conditions of use which might even just be to graze sheep as opposed to using it for other profitable enterprise that could result in a higher turnover per year in financial terms. 

There could also be conditions that the farmer is required to perform in his rental of the land in the way the sheep are managed; however the nature of who gets the payment might be debatable for certain.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2016)

J_M,  I'm struggling with the point that you're trying to make.  Are you claiming,  as it seems,  that there are packs of hounds which are also 'Active' Farmers?  To claim SFP it's vital that the claimant be 'ACTIVELY' farming.

If by a spurious route,  you're pointing out that there are those who farm and are in receipt of SFP,  AND they also Hunt,  then you might just as well claim that anyone who farms and is a claimant and who has an interest out side of agriculture,  is also having that interest or hobby supported.

£11,761 of benefit from SFP appears the figure which you tell us that the Cotswold are receiving in benefits.  Are the Cotswold as a pack,  actively farming?  It also seems that you're unclear as to who actually owns the land which has the entitlements attached to it.

Currently old chap,  your argument seems to be more of a rambling and one with nothing to support it.

Alec.


----------



## ycbm (21 May 2016)

Overread said:



			Aye as I said there are ways to take advantage of the system and I only lightly know the conservation side of CAPs not the whole selection of payments on offer.
On the surface this sounds like an easy winner; however on the flipside I suspect there could be more to it than she has made you possibly aware? There might be some conditions of use which might even just be to graze sheep as opposed to using it for other profitable enterprise that could result in a higher turnover per year in financial terms. 

There could also be conditions that the farmer is required to perform in his rental of the land in the way the sheep are managed; however the nature of who gets the payment might be debatable for certain.
		
Click to expand...

Trust me, I know her life I great detail. This is money for absolutely nothing. True, she cannot cut the hay until the ground nesting birds are done, for example, but she doesn't cut until September anyway.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			Overread I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She gives the use of it to a local farmer who grazes his sheep in return for making the hay she feeds her horses, and she banks the CAP single payment herself. It's an astonishing amount of money for owning less than a hundred acres.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

The current rate for bare land is about £80 per acre,  so to achieve £15k from less than 100 acres would have one think that it's in another scheme,  HLS for instance,  but as an HLS site cropping by haymaking would be outside the permitted usage.  I'm wondering if your figures may have been massaged!

Alec.


----------



## Overread (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			Trust me, I know her life I great detail. This is money for absolutely nothing. True, she cannot cut the hay until the ground nesting birds are done, for example, but she doesn't cut until September anyway.
		
Click to expand...

I can agree with you that sheep are not the most ideal of grazing from a conservation angle. 
The problem is if you want people to not use land or to manage it for wildlife they basically have to invest in the land or take a loss from the land's potential income. So paying them enough becomes the concept - of course some land owners who own larger areas can thus turn this to advantage and have the land earn for "doing nothing" but that in itself is the concept of the conservation payments.

It is essentially paying people to do nothing (or rather to manage it in a manner that is not production driven) because otherwise they will do something. 

Whilst we can argue that the execution has problems I think the overall idea is sound - especially in a country like the UK where we have very little land that isn't owned by someone. 



You can consider it a form of madness - farmers were once paid to tear up hedgerows and build bigger fields; now they are being paid to put in hedges and beetle banks. But in the end its about changing behaviour and money is often the most easy way to achieve that end goal. 

I think also with farmers there's also a resentment to taking land out of production with some. They feel and were raised that it is their duty to improve (agriculturally) the land they own for production of food. So to make some turn away to have less production is not just a financial but also a psychological change.


----------



## ycbm (21 May 2016)

Overread said:



			I can agree with you that sheep are not the most ideal of grazing from a conservation angle. 
The problem is if you want people to not use land or to manage it for wildlife they basically have to invest in the land or take a loss from the land's potential income. So paying them enough becomes the concept - of course some land owners who own larger areas can thus turn this to advantage and have the land earn for "doing nothing" but that in itself is the concept of the conservation payments.

It is essentially paying people to do nothing (or rather to manage it in a manner that is not production driven) because otherwise they will do something. 

Whilst we can argue that the execution has problems I think the overall idea is sound - especially in a country like the UK where we have very little land that isn't owned by someone. 



You can consider it a form of madness - farmers were once paid to tear up hedgerows and build bigger fields; now they are being paid to put in hedges and beetle banks. But in the end its about changing behaviour and money is often the most easy way to achieve that end goal. 

I think also with farmers there's also a resentment to taking land out of production with some. They feel and were raised that it is their duty to improve (agriculturally) the land they own for production of food. So to make some turn away to have less production is not just a financial but also a psychological change.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with incentivising behaviour. I agree with paying for setaside, for example, it has revitalised the bird population. 

I'm just talking about one specific person who I know for an absolute fact does nothing whatsoever different with her land than she would do without the payment. I suspect, though, that there are many more like he!







Alec, like you I can't actually work out what judgmental's point actually is?


----------



## Overread (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			I
I'm just talking about one specific person who I know for an absolute fact does nothing whatsoever different with her land than she would do without the payment. I suspect, though, that there are many more like he!
		
Click to expand...

Aye, but the payments remain otherwise the whole system can slip. Getting paid to do what you were doing to do anyway without the payment is nice. But it also helps to guarantee that she can't change her mind. A few years of bad finances could make people re-evaluate their view on land management and push for more productivity - its only natural - by having a payment system in place it tries to avoid that.


----------



## ycbm (21 May 2016)

True


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			Alec, like you I can't actually work out what judgmental's point actually is?
		
Click to expand...

I do find it remarkable that folk on this forum of all forums cannot see what is happening.

When  today's Daily Telegraph, yes the Telegraph that Conservative of Conservative of newspapers, says that we are being treated no better than a Banana Republic and that the Prime Minister is lying - the very word used. Don't you people realise or comprehend the bigger picture, that the majority of the population are being lied to over EU and agricultural benefits to farmers, is one of the many examples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...aceful-dishonesty-over-the-eu-is-turning-bri/


----------



## ycbm (21 May 2016)

I argue that myself on other threads Judgemental, but what on earth has it got to do with hunts? They can't claim unless they farm land. If they farm land, what's the problem?


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

ycbm said:



			I argue that myself on other threads Judgemental, but what on earth has it got to do with hunts? They can't claim unless they farm land. If they farm land, what's the problem?
		
Click to expand...

Look, it may not be the most obvious feature but if one is an OUT politician or campaigner, all they have to do is get on TV or in front of an audience and spray the audience with a spin on wealthy hunting folk, being given tax payers money to run their hunts. Believe me they are and will. The piece in the Telegraph is indicative what's to come. The Daily Express mentioned money going to hunts last week. Along with the issue of EU money being handed out for land and little or no requirement to do anything as a result of receiving the money.

The old adage, "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time", could not be more appropriate.

Referendums are curious beasts, we haven't had one for 40 odd years, when incidentally we were lied to by Harold Wilson and the most unexpected features are suddenly thrown up in 'neon lights'


----------



## ester (21 May 2016)

Ah well maybe they should come to you for advice then?


----------



## Judgemental (21 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			J_M,  I'm struggling with the point that you're trying to make.  Are you claiming,  as it seems,  that there are packs of hounds which are also 'Active' Farmers?  To claim SFP it's vital that the claimant be 'ACTIVELY' farming.

If by a spurious route,  you're pointing out that there are those who farm and are in receipt of SFP,  AND they also Hunt,  then you might just as well claim that anyone who farms and is a claimant and who has an interest out side of agriculture,  is also having that interest or hobby supported.

£11,761 of benefit from SFP appears the figure which you tell us that the Cotswold are receiving in benefits.  Are the Cotswold as a pack,  actively farming?  It also seems that you're unclear as to who actually owns the land which has the entitlements attached to it.

Currently old chap,  your argument seems to be more of a rambling and one with nothing to support it.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec you are so good at bringing me down to earth. However if you consider what I have said since your last post and the fact Hunting and ownership of land, is synonymous with PRIVILEGE and Dodgy Dave and Osborne are representative of the unacceptable face of  privilege. Dodgy Dave calls it 'being aspirational' but in the case of land it is almost always inherited, so to have an 'aspirational' inheritance of land and then to be funded by the tax payer in order to keep it, will prove to be the Achilles heel of British agriculture whether it is IN or OUT of the EU.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 May 2016)

The strange thing about land which is passed down from father to son is that it usually arrives complete with an understanding of rural ways and tradition and they both matter.  The successful business man,  on the other hand,  who sells out his world for £squillions and decides that he'd like to be the lord of the manor,  and buys in accordingly,  generally hasn't got a clue what he's doing.

Now then,  there are pricks in all walks of life,  and I'm not saying that inheritance is a right of passage and should be considered to always be ideal,  or that the self made man would be anathema,  but 'generally' I find that rolls are filled and again 'generally',  fairly predictably.

There is within the CAP colossal wastage and a deal of corruption,  and if we leave the EU,  then the problems will be simply addressed.  If we stay,  then nothing will change,  for as long as we remain.

Our countryside is not ours to do with as we please,  we have it in trust and must account for it to those who come after. (plagiarised from elsewhere,  King George V1,  from memory!).

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (22 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			The strange thing about land which is passed down from father to son is that it usually arrives complete with an understanding of rural ways and tradition and they both matter.  The successful business man,  on the other hand,  who sells out his world for £squillions and decides that he'd like to be the lord of the manor,  and buys in accordingly,  generally hasn't got a clue what he's doing.

Now then,  there are pricks in all walks of life,  and I'm not saying that inheritance is a right of passage and should be considered to always be ideal,  or that the self made man would be anathema,  but 'generally' I find that rolls are filled and again 'generally',  fairly predictably.

There is within the CAP colossal wastage and a deal of corruption,  and if we leave the EU,  then the problems will be simply addressed.  If we stay,  then nothing will change,  for as long as we remain.

Our countryside is not ours to do with as we please,  we have it in trust and must account for it to those who come after. (plagiarised from elsewhere,  King George V1,  from memory!).

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec the interesting and very curious part  in all this, is the position of the Labour Party. Bearing in mind their zealous  opposition to hunting and all that it represents.

My sources indicate they were, I stress were, completely oblivious of all these features, bearing in mind they are largely urban orientated.

Indeed I am told they are generally, now in something of a dilemma over Europe

Quite what Kerry McCarthy, the Shadow Minister of Agriculture, is going to make of packs of hounds receiving EU Benefits remains to be seen. I believe neither she nor Jeremy Corbyn were aware of this.

In the context of your post Ms McCarthy has a Private Members bill going through  Parliment concerning Food Waste. 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/foodwastereduction.html

It won't surprise me if the Labour Party do a complete U-Turn concerning Europe.


----------



## ester (22 May 2016)

well if they weren't aware they are even dimmer than first apparent. 

Do we actually care that much about the position of the labour party right now?

Personally I think you are making rather a storm in a teacup given all of the other important parts of the Europe debate.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 May 2016)

ester said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Do we actually care that much about the position of the labour party right now?

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

No party in opposition can be effective,  when most view them as an irrelevance.

The SNP now have greater influence in Westminster.

Alec.


----------



## Orangehorse (23 May 2016)

Since we have been in the EU it has been Government policy, of whatever political party, to fight for all the subsidies for the UK they can get.  That is why there was never a cap on acreage, which for some was an attractive idea, because since the UK has more larger farms than others in the EU, it would mean that we would be affected by this more than other countries whose farms were generally small - think of Greece and France for instance.

The origin of the Common Agricultural Policy was to ensure that there was plentiful food for the population and to try to bring farming and countryside incomes up to be equal to urban living standards.  There was a huge flight from the land into towns and factory/urgan jobs and the countryside was being de-populated.  There is one caveat about this of course.  In Europe unless you were aristocracy and owned a large estate,  if you worked the land you were (are) considered a peasant.
(And I remember a YFC trip to an East European country where one of our party who lived in one of the gorgeous Georgian farmhouses in Shropshire was outraged by the attitude of her host family and their friends as they considered her a peasant - we were amused.)

So you are fitting a Europe wide policy of small farms and tiny incomes to UK agriculture where there is kudos in being a landowner/yeoman farmer, but it was a price the UK Government was willing to pay to join the EU.  I just want to say that over the years there have been ups and down in agriculture prices and although there were certainly prosperous times in the 1970s and 1980s for farmers, in recent years Ihave heard it time and time again that the only thing keeping farmers in business is the EU subsidy, in other words farmers get more in subsidy than the annual profit from farming.  That is why so many have branched out into livery yards, wedding venues, shooting, B & B, etc. etc.

As for the price of land - that is a whole different story, who has the time to examine that?

There have been several different systems for the administration of EU subsidies to farmers, it seems that we just were used to one system when there was a change to a different one.  I must remind those who are exercised by the Dorset Hunt saga that it was a Labour minister of Agriculture who decided how the EU money was to be distributed.


----------



## fburton (26 May 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			Whatever you think about the financial support the EU gives farmers you can't blame people for claiming the money the scheme allows them to .
The fault lies with the those who set up the system not those claiming the money .
		
Click to expand...

Like Winter Fuel Payments, I suppose.


----------



## Judgemental (27 May 2016)

fburton said:



			Like Winter Fuel Payments, I suppose.
		
Click to expand...

fburton what a splendid comment and how very appropriate, because DEFRA figures and statistics show that 800 titled folk i.e Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies and Baronets etc collected £30 million in 2014.

That is an average of £37,500.00 each I suppose they would need that to heat some of the monstrous and inappropriate piles they inhabit.  

No doubt those over 60 still get their £200.00 per household as well.


----------



## popsdosh (27 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			fburton what a splendid comment and how very appropriate, because DEFRA figures and statistics show that 800 titled folk i.e Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies and Baronets etc collected £30 million in 2014.

That is an average of £37,500.00 each I suppose they would need that to heat some of the monstrous and inappropriate piles they inhabit.  

No doubt those over 60 still get their £200.00 per household as well.
		
Click to expand...

God you must lead a boring life and its even sadder you seem to be the only one who cares!!


----------



## Alec Swan (27 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			fburton what a splendid comment and how very appropriate, because DEFRA figures and statistics show that 800 titled folk i.e Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies and Baronets etc collected £30 million in 2014.

That is an average of £37,500.00 each I suppose they would need that to heat some of the monstrous and inappropriate piles they inhabit.  

No doubt those over 60 still get their £200.00 per household as well.
		
Click to expand...

Finally J-M,  I've rumbled you;  you're really Monbiot masquerading as a mental judge,  aren't you?! 

A cryptic user name?  For you?  Very good!  Deny it and your rather reduced level of credibility will sink in to the basement. 

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (29 May 2016)

popsdosh said:



			God you must lead a boring life and its even sadder you seem to be the only one who cares!!
		
Click to expand...

Considering Priti Patel has criticized Cameron and Osborne, (posh boys from Eton) her own party because they are so wealthy and are out of touch with reality and immigration. 

Comments that have been well received in the media and man/woman on the street.

My comments are therefore fully justified about the privileged inherited estates, belonging to titled aristocrats who have done absolutely nothing, but inherit the land and now do nothing for the massive benefits they are paid by the EU, that is attached to the land. Then of course, the poor old tenant has to pay 82% of his/her EU money to the landlord.

Don't take my word for it. Read the following

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/67...atel-Tory-EU-Referendum-luxury-mass-migration


----------



## Alec Swan (29 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

My comments are therefore fully justified about the privileged inherited estates, &#8230;&#8230;.. , but inherit the land and now do nothing for the massive benefits they are paid by the EU, that is attached to the land. Then of course, the poor old tenant has to pay 82% of his/her EU money to the landlord.

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Your comment would imply that the Landowner is in receipt of CAP benefits and *'Then' of course,  the poor old tenant has to pay 82%' etc. &#8230;&#8230;..* so that the Landlord also claims from the tenant.  If that was what you intended,  then you're wrong.

SFPs are now paid out on land rather than by IAX or headage payments.  Either the Landlord or the Tenant will be in receipt of the CAP payments,  but not both.  If the Landlord claims the payments,  then the rent to the tenant will be heavily reduced,  and to possibly 18% of the going rate.  If the Tenant claims the payment,  then the commensurate rent will be levied working on the basis (as you seem to suggest),  that it's money for nothing,  and that the Landlord is entitled to his share.

ETS,  I'm no more in favour of the system than you,  believing that CAP payments should support those who produce our food,  but it's how it is,  and I can't see any change,  in or out of the EU.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (29 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Your comment would imply that the Landowner is in receipt of CAP benefits and *'Then' of course,  the poor old tenant has to pay 82%' etc. &#8230;&#8230;..* so that the Landlord also claims from the tenant.  If that was what you intended,  then you're wrong.

SFPs are now paid out on land rather than by IAX or headage payments.  Either the Landlord or the Tenant will be in receipt of the CAP payments,  but not both.  If the Landlord claims the payments,  then the rent to the tenant will be heavily reduced,  and to possibly 18% of the going rate.  If the Tenant claims the payment,  then the commensurate rent will be levied working on the basis (as you seem to suggest),  that it's money for nothing,  and that the Landlord is entitled to his share.

ETS,  I'm no more in favour of the system than you,  believing that CAP payments should support those who produce our food,  but it's how it is,  and I can't see any change,  in or out of the EU.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The semantics of who gets what and how it is calculated is academic.

The point is very wealthy people and I am not talking about all those 'poor subsistence dog and stick farmers' in East Anglia, I am talking about Titled Aristocrats who have inherited estates, passed down the years, for which they have done nothing and for which the EU are paying money for nothing.

They don't need the money and they are not producing any more or less food. 

If it is less, then they better get up in the morning, drag themselves out of their stately homes, castles, mansions and get on the tractor, milk the cows, do the hedge trimming, ruddle the rams, foot rot the sheep, clean out the calves, pigs themselves, run the grain drier etc.


----------



## ester (29 May 2016)

Ah yes, of course, those estates pay for themselves 

It isn't semantics it is accuracy. 

I shall decline to read the daily express, thanks.


----------



## Judgemental (29 May 2016)

ester said:



			Ah yes, of course, those estates pay for themselves 

Click to expand...

Why should the titled inherited agricultural estates have any benefits, more than any other business?


----------



## Alec Swan (29 May 2016)

Judgemental said:



			&#8230;&#8230;.. I am not talking about all those 'poor subsistence dog and stick farmers' in East Anglia, &#8230;&#8230;..  etc.
		
Click to expand...

You're on rather thin ice there,  old bean!  Whilst not gifted with a spectacular intellect,  I've earned my living by my modest abilities,  hard graft and the vision to see s*** for what it is.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (29 May 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			You're on rather thin ice there,  old bean!  Whilst not gifted with a spectacular intellect,  I've earned my living by my modest abilities,  hard graft and the vision to see s*** for what it is.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Very true Alec and what JM seems to miss is that to claim any benefits as he would like to put it, the claimant now has to be an active working farmer sort of blows his argument out of the water!

I really do question his figures sometimes where has this 82% figure come from all of a sudden as I would love to see the source of that was it somebody who actually knows anything about how the system works.

Jm may like to know that I was declared bankrupt at 23 when milk quotas came in , with nothing behind me moved to another part of Britain and through bloody hard work now have control over a sizeable business . None of this I could have  achieved without the landlord and tenant system that has evolved over the years it actually works well for both sides and at the end of the day they get a return on their capital that no other busness would accept so get off your high horse JM unless you can really suggest any alternative


----------



## Judgemental (2 June 2016)

I do wonder if some of you live in the real world. All so you can line your pockets with free hand outs from the EU. Granted most have never been in the firing line of a terrorist but that could all change unless the majority wake up to the risks. 

32 British Citizens were cruelly murdered as they were holidaying and sun bathing on a Tunisia beach by a terrorist rocking up in a Rubber Rib .

Now that the summer months are here it is easy to pick up Immigrants from the French
Coast in a Rubber Rib which are virtually undetectable at night and slip across the channel.

So called immigrants who could easily be members of Isil who could rock up in any West Country town or village and similarly murder and blow up innocent British Citizens.

If we issue some draconian measures and exit the EU rapidly some realistic controls can be put in place without  interference from Brussels. 

Brussels simply want to dump as many migrants in the UK irrespective of whether or not they are legal, illegal or terrists.


Alec I would have thought you would be awake to the risks, the others who post on this forum are probably too young to recognize what can happen.

Suggest folk have a read of the following and forget their Benefits and Subsidies and think about security.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...inside-the-arrogant-imperial-and-dangerously/


----------



## ester (2 June 2016)

Sorry all line our pockets with free handouts? Not likely round here! 

the rest, well, ermm.


----------



## Lizzie66 (7 June 2016)

JM are you seriously trying to argue that being in the EU has made the world unsafe ? Or that if we weren't in the EU people wouldn't be able to slip through our borders ? Or that Brussels is actively sending terrorists and illegal immigrants our way ?

To then try and suggest that this is linked to the CAP payments is ludicrous in the extreme.

I'm sorry but you are up there with the MRL party.


----------



## Orangehorse (7 June 2016)

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.


----------



## Judgemental (8 June 2016)

The words, views and warnings of Enoch Powell are more relevant today than at any other time

Particularly his 1968 Rivers of Blood speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc26aTCwyYM

In order to make my point one has to watch the whole clip


----------



## Judgemental (8 June 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



			JM are you seriously trying to argue that being in the EU has made the world unsafe ? Or that if we weren't in the EU people wouldn't be able to slip through our borders ? Or that Brussels is actively sending terrorists and illegal immigrants our way ?

To then try and suggest that this is linked to the CAP payments is ludicrous in the extreme.

I'm sorry but you are up there with the MRL party.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, because we are enslaved to unelected officials, who want to see our population infiltrated by a whole host of ethnic non-British people, immigrants of one sort or another, in order to weaken our right thinking Anglo Saxon values and way of life. 

CAP payments are a bribe to the landowners and farmers to retain support for the EU, in order for such as Jean-Claude Juncker The unelected president of the EU, a Luxembourger by birth, to finish the work Hitler set out to do in 1939. To subjugate the British people to Europe.  

I have posted a clip concerning the late great Enoch Powell (whose driver at elections was Nigel Farage) who took up hunting, largely as he said, because it was symbolic of something that had been arbitrarily outlawed by shooting the hounds and hunt staff in Germany, by Hitler's Bavarian henchmen and members of the Gestapo.

Plainly those who wish to remain in the EU are pandering to rich, privileged Eton educated cronies of Dave's chums in such as The East Anglian Turnip Taliban.


----------



## Orangehorse (9 June 2016)

The Nazi Party started out as a sort of "green" party and one of the reasons for banning hunting was to please the farmers who didn't like the local aristos galloping all over their land.  Hunting does now take place in Germany,  a sort of drag hunt, as I met three hunting-mad Germans while on holiday last year although my german and their english didn't let us go into the finer details.


----------



## Judgemental (10 June 2016)

Orangehorse said:



			The Nazi Party started out as a sort of "green" party and one of the reasons for banning hunting was to please the farmers who didn't like the local aristos galloping all over their land.  Hunting does now take place in Germany,  a sort of drag hunt, as I met three hunting-mad Germans while on holiday last year although my german and their english didn't let us go into the finer details.
		
Click to expand...

Orangehorse, what absolute rubbish.

Hunting was banned by the Nazi's in 1936, because Hitler was afraid of the German Aristocracy.

Don't you dare dilute the evils of the Nazi party or their disgusting policies. 

Also, the huge acres of armaments that where sheeted down, were something Hitler and his generals did not want seen, for obvious reasons.

Coupled to the various Concentration Camps that were being built.

His prime intention so far as the banning of hunting was set out, to senior officers in his speech at Obersalzberg Bavaria, when he was staying at the Berchtesgaden on 22 August 1939.


----------



## popsdosh (18 June 2016)

Still waiting for the armagedon from the press over this issue and the referendum is only around the corner! LOL


----------



## Judgemental (20 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Still waiting for the armagedon from the press over this issue and the referendum is only around the corner! LOL
		
Click to expand...

Armageddon, (with 2 x d's if you are going to use these 'big' words) will ensue if we are fooled into voting Remain, because Cameron has not achieved any sort of a deal with EU leaders, other than the flimsy agreement similar to that Neville Chamberlain had with Adolf Hitler in 1939, when Chamberlain stepped off the plane from Munich, waving a piece of paper with Hitler's signature. Chamberlain saying "peace in our time".

Mr Superiority Cameron, does not even have the piece of paper! 

The so called deal he has with the EU leaders, has not been ratified or set down on paper, merely a verbal agreement which any one of them can Welch on.

popsdosh you are remarkably naive if you do not understand the scenario.

Cameron has been rattled on BBC's Question Time and invoked the position of Sir Winston Churchill. The difference between Churchill and Cameron is that the former was a mature man, but more importantly he was trusted by the British people

The adage, "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time" could not be more apt.


----------



## Judgemental (24 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Still waiting for the armagedon from the press over this issue and the referendum is only around the corner! LOL
		
Click to expand...

Well popsdosh, I trust the result of the EU Referendum is a sufficient Armageddon for you?

The Prime Minister has resigned, the pound has plummeted from $1.50 to $1.35 and the Stock Market has fallen dramatically.

In all probability farmland values will fall by about 90% without EU subsidies.


----------



## ester (24 June 2016)

You think the result was down to the CAP payments to the south dorset hunt?


----------



## popsdosh (24 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Well popsdosh, I trust the result of the EU Referendum is a sufficient Armageddon for you?

The Prime Minister has resigned, the pound has plummeted from $1.50 to $1.35 and the Stock Market has fallen dramatically.

In all probability farmland values will fall by about 90% without EU subsidies.
		
Click to expand...

Already made money taking advantage of the short term situation thank you. Hope you did . also. By monday we will most likely be back somewhere near where we were!
Also thanks to the south dorset hunt for bringing that for me.LOL
If you think land values will collapse you really are deluded but then we have already seen how good your predictions are!!


----------



## Judgemental (24 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Already made money taking advantage of the short term situation thank you. Hope you did . also. By monday we will most likely be back somewhere near where we were!
Also thanks to the south dorset hunt for bringing that for me.LOL
If you think land values will collapse you really are deluded but then we have already seen how good your predictions are!!
		
Click to expand...

There are a variety of media comments concerning the inevitable fall in Farm Land Price

For example: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-farming-idUKKCN0X82AY

Of course a dramatic fall in farm land prices, will reduce the level of farm rents, indeed they will have to be dramatically reduced.

EU subsidies have been artificially boosted farmland prices.


----------



## popsdosh (24 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			There are a variety of media comments concerning the inevitable fall in Farm Land Price

For example: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-farming-idUKKCN0X82AY

Of course a dramatic fall in farm land prices, will reduce the level of farm rents, indeed they will have to be dramatically reduced.

EU subsidies have been artificially boosted farmland prices.
		
Click to expand...

They havent but you wont accept that . Demand drives land prices ! All the time we keep building houses its a finite resource they we cannot make more of it.


----------



## Judgemental (24 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			They havent but you wont accept that . Demand drives land prices ! All the time we keep building houses its a finite resource they we cannot make more of it.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...an-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/


----------



## popsdosh (25 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...an-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/

Click to expand...

So I just base my business decisions on what others think may happen ( why do you take so much notice) against what my years of experience in the business tells me.
Through all the agricultural downturns in my life time land values have never ended up coming down.I hope values do drop as we will happily be buying more if it drops to where we can actually service the financing involved. As for rents you show very little understanding as to how AHT rents are arrived at its not just what the landlord wants there is an agreed formula that is based on the earning capacity of the land.
As for FBT rents they are down to what farmers want to bid to get the tenancy and many only have themselves to blame with what they have offered being well in excess of the money that can be made from the land all for the sake of farming those extra acres.


----------



## Judgemental (25 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I hope values do drop as we will happily be buying more if it drops to where we can actually service the financing involved.
		
Click to expand...

You won't find any bankers who will lend for any farm purchase at the moment. I am reliably informed there will be a wholesale calling in of loans and overdrafts. Indeed receivers are already anticipating quite a few farm repossessions. Particularly as the EU want us gone forthwith.

Logic being, as the rest of the EU want the UK gone immediately, coupled to the Brexit Leavers making arrangements, so that the UK ceases making any further payments to Brussels immediately, it is likely all EU farm subsidies will also cease immediately.

You can forget any notion of a nice orderly withdrawal from the EU overtime in a comfortable time frame of the UK's choosing.

The rest of the EU member states are saying here is your "P45" .... off and .... off now!


----------



## popsdosh (25 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			You won't find any bankers who will lend for any farm purchase at the moment. I am reliably informed there will be a wholesale calling in of loans and overdrafts. Indeed receivers are already anticipating quite a few farm repossessions. Particularly as the EU want us gone forthwith.

Logic being, as the rest of the EU want the UK gone immediately, coupled to the Brexit Leavers making arrangements, so that the UK ceases making any further payments to Brussels immediately, it is likely all EU farm subsidies will also cease immediately.

You can forget any notion of a nice orderly withdrawal from the EU overtime in a comfortable time frame of the UK's choosing.

The rest of the EU member states are saying here is your "P45" .... off and .... off now!
		
Click to expand...

I think they will be like all your other predictions pie in the sky !!!!! 

Still not seen any movement on your original point and the subject of this thread again totally mistaken assumptions on your part.


----------



## Judgemental (25 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			I think they will be like all your other predictions pie in the sky !!!!! 

Still not seen any movement on your original point and the subject of this thread again totally mistaken assumptions on your part.
		
Click to expand...

popsdosh that is just where you are so wrong. 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.

Anybody who owns land, farmland, goes hunting  and is perceived as wealthy, privileged is  the recipients of inherited wealth.

The British people did not vote by a majority to line their wallets and pockets they, voted because they want decency and fairness restored and their country that they can call their own.

For the little business person to protect their business, unlike all the privileged wealthy landowners, farmers and hunting elite who with their inherited wealth, have been protected by grossly inflated EU subsidies.   

Also to close our borders to the relentless march of immigrants.

Immigrants that the wealthy privileged landowners and farmers want as cheap labor predominantly in East Anglia and Scotland. Also for those immigrants to depress the wages of the populous in the greater economy. 

Well no more, the unacceptable face of agricultural protectionism which has been removed, or at least will be removed. Indeed probably a great deal faster, if the EU commission have their way. To make an example of the UK.

After all the British EU Commissioner Lord Paul Hill was obliged to resign earlier today.   

This has never happened before, therefore the manner of it's coming and results, are  not recognized according to any known or existing formula - along with the resignation of the comprehensively failed Prime Minister. Perhaps if he had gone to a comprehensive school, instead of the sort of person turned out by Eton, he might have understood  the common working class people, who are the back bone of this country. Whose homes, jobs, the NHS, schools and local indigenous society were being usurped by immigrant insurgency.


----------



## ester (25 June 2016)

Yes Boris, definitely not of the privileged wealthy...


----------



## popsdosh (26 June 2016)

ester said:



			Yes Boris, definitely not of the privileged wealthy...
		
Click to expand...

LOL !!! my prediction 5 yrs time we are still in EU(they need us more than we need them) and for what its worth JM this privileged over subsidised farmer voted to leave.


----------



## Judgemental (26 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			LOL !!! my prediction 5 yrs time we are still in EU(they need us more than we need them) and for what its worth JM this privileged over subsidised farmer voted to leave.
		
Click to expand...

A typical remark and indicative of the Establishment, who when they lose, try and trample all over the little people and their richly deserved and long over due democracy, by 'throwing monetary consideration in the gutter'.

Mocking the winners will only lead to a increasingly divided country.


----------



## Goldenstar (26 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			LOL !!! my prediction 5 yrs time we are still in EU(they need us more than we need them) and for what its worth JM this privileged over subsidised farmer voted to leave.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's very possible  in five years we will still technically be in bit only as the never before tried system of leaving will be torturously slow .


----------



## Maesfen (26 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			and for what its worth JM this privileged over subsidised farmer voted to leave.
		
Click to expand...

The same as very many farmers have.  They would rather give up some subsidies than be dictated to by Brussels any longer, that is what's swayed it for them at least in our area it has.


----------



## Judgemental (26 June 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			I think it's very possible  in five years we will still technically be in bit only as the never before tried system of leaving will be torturously slow .
		
Click to expand...

Firstly I think we, hunting folk can take a bow as to the erudite arguments that are being put forward post Brexit.

Goldenstar, I am going to disagree with you, not because I have any particular interest or issue with the time frame.

The EU Commission and the various EU leaders want us gone and gone very quickly. We are like a disease that could infect other member states in the EU. By going quickly that makes an example of a state who has decided to leave.

Furthermore reading The New York Times this morning, there is a very interesting piece about how Brexit has changed the world order imposed immediately post 1945 by the Americans.

My sources indicate that whilst the Americans can understand the position of the UK and the result, they i.e the State Department and Military want to see a very swift succession so far as a Prime Minister is concerned, coupled to a swift and clean exit from the EU.

There is also another piece that suggests that the Brexit vote has damaged Mrs Clinton's chances of becoming the next President, because she is very much for the Establishment and existing status quo. 

Don't misunderstand me, I don't have any particular view either way but we must embrace the world outside of the EU from hereon.


----------



## Goldenstar (26 June 2016)

I agree it may well have damaged Clinton and I also agree that the rest of the EU will want a quick exit don't want those other citizens getting any silly ideas .
However it's not as simple as that .
We need a new pm as quick as possible and we then need to negotiate hard to get the best deal using speed as I do think that's  our best bargaining chip.
Whose best to lead that process I just don't know .
But the more you think of the morass of stuff that needs sorting the worse it sounds how you entangle that quickly I have no idea .
And at some point we will have deal with Scotland .


----------



## Alec Swan (26 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			..

My sources indicate that whilst the Americans can understand the position of the UK and the result, they i.e the State Department and Military want to see a very swift succession so far as the Prime Minister is concerned,  coupled to a swift and clean exit from the EU.

..

Don't misunderstand me, I don't have any particular view either way but we must embrace the world outside of the EU from hereon.
		
Click to expand...

_** the State Department and Military want to see a very swift succession so far as a Prime Minister is concerned, coupled to a swift and clean exit from the EU.**_

So that's what America 'wants' is it?  Whatever the future holds it will be to the benefit of the UK and will then put us in a stronger position to offer support to other nations and states.  We will exit the EU and replace our PM at a speed which suits us,  not the one nation who have and still contrive to manipulate world politics and to suit their own ends.  I understand that Obama has reinforced his previous statement that when it comes to trade deals,  we will now go to the back of the queue.  So we're going to bend over and accept the demands of American foreign policy are we?  Are we ****.

We will,  I feel sure embrace (as you put it) the remainder of the world and Europe in particular,  the difference now though is that _'negotiation'_ will be the key word,  not _'compliance'_.

Alec.


----------



## ester (26 June 2016)

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


----------



## Alec Swan (26 June 2016)

ester,  who's that question for?

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (27 June 2016)

Back to business and the primary substance of this forum.

Assuming Boris is the next Prime Minister, if he is smart he will look for a personal mandate as Prime Minister and ditch the Fixed Term Parliament Act and go for a General Election in November. 

The Conservatives will win with a landslide majority akin to that of Mrs Thatcher.

I hear you say what about Theresa May, a lovely and very capable lady, with a good degree from Oxford in Geography. However Boris has, shall we say hard wired himself into the mantle of succession.  

Let's face it they don't exactly have an opposition, although Hilary Benn could be a formidable adversary if Corbyn goes.

Nevertheless, it will lead to Repeal.


----------



## Goldenstar (27 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Back to business and the primary substance of this forum.

Assuming Boris is the next Prime Minister, if he is smart he will look for a personal mandate as Prime Minister and ditch the Fixed Term Parliament Act and go for a General Election in November. 

The Conservatives will win with a landslide majority akin to that of Mrs Thatcher.

I hear you say what about Theresa May, a lovely and very capable lady, with a good degree from Oxford in Geography. However Boris has, shall we say hard wired himself into the mantle of succession.  

Let's face it they don't exactly have an opposition, although Hilary Benn could be a formidable adversary if Corbyn goes.

Nevertheless, it will lead to Repeal.
		
Click to expand...

I have followed TM's career from the start and I would love to see her lead the country however a part of me thinks BJ should have to get on deliver what he supported ,the 350 million a week for the NHS and all that .
Let him be the one who explains that we are going to pay for access to the single market and at the same time he could explain how a custom union works when you living outside it .
Let him be in the chair when the issues with migration continue and the money from the EU stops flowing into the uni's and into Wales etc.
And  it will defiantly be more entertaining with BJ in charge .
I suspect he will do a deal with GO who will remain chancellor .
I know GO is not popular but the markets like him and that means a lot ATM .


----------



## ester (27 June 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			ester,  who's that question for?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Judgemental, as he was the one maintaining it was a protest vote against the right wing landed elite. He seems to only want to talk to popsdosh and GS though and ignores most others comments, however valid.


----------



## popsdosh (27 June 2016)

ester said:



			Judgemental, as he was the one maintaining it was a protest vote against the right wing landed elite. He seems to only want to talk to popsdosh and GS though and ignores most others comments, however valid.
		
Click to expand...

Talk or pontificate not sure. My upbringing and profile doesn't exactly fit in with his theory.

I do feel sorry for Boris ,I dont think for one minute he expected to win on thursday it has sort of messed his plans up re the leadership. There have been very few in the tory party more pro europe than Boris over the years!


----------



## Countryman (27 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Back to business and the primary substance of this forum.

Assuming Boris is the next Prime Minister, if he is smart he will look for a personal mandate as Prime Minister and ditch the Fixed Term Parliament Act and go for a General Election in November. 

The Conservatives will win with a landslide majority akin to that of Mrs Thatcher.

I hear you say what about Theresa May, a lovely and very capable lady, with a good degree from Oxford in Geography. However Boris has, shall we say hard wired himself into the mantle of succession.  

Let's face it they don't exactly have an opposition, although Hilary Benn could be a formidable adversary if Corbyn goes.

Nevertheless, it will lead to Repeal.
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly, several of the more prominent pro-leave Conservative MP's happen to be in the minority anti-hunting wing of the party, so repeal is certainly not guaranteed. But I think both Boris and Theresa May would be sympathetic people to have in power.


----------



## Judgemental (29 June 2016)

Interesting thought, if Mrs Sturgeon and Scotland wants to be a member of the EU, does that mean we will not have to have any Scottish MP's in the House of Commons.

What a delicious notion, repeal would definitely be on the cards. English votes for English laws.

She really has become far too big for her boots and an inflated opinion of her own self importance?


----------



## Countryman (29 June 2016)

Judgemental said:



			Interesting thought, if Mrs Sturgeon and Scotland wants to be a member of the EU, does that mean we will not have to have any Scottish MP's in the House of Commons.

What a delicious notion, repeal would definitely be on the cards. English votes for English laws.

She really has become far too big for her boots and an inflated opinion of her own self importance?
		
Click to expand...

I agree but really whether Scotland is in the Union or not  - English Votes for English Laws should still be enacted as swiftly as possible. The current set up is nonsense - English and Welsh MP's are completely unable to pass or repeal laws solely affecting England and Wales. They are only given a very limited veto on aspects of new legislation.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 June 2016)

Judgemental;   few have the ability to backtrack,  quite as you do.

Sincerely yours,  an East Anglian who manages to survive on turnips.


----------



## Judgemental (29 June 2016)

Countryman said:



			I agree but really whether Scotland is in the Union or not  - English Votes for English Laws should still be enacted as swiftly as possible. The current set up is nonsense - English and Welsh MP's are completely unable to pass or repeal laws solely affecting England and Wales. They are only given a very limited veto on aspects of new legislation.
		
Click to expand...

Countryman you are so right Sturgeon and her mob have caused endless problems for the government, simply for gratuitous political thrills. 

We could have had repeal or at least an amendment using the Statutory Instrument, had the SNP not scuppered the plans of the government before Christmas.

However, it looks as if Sturgeon got her comeuppance today. Who does this insignificant young lady from the Isle of Skye think she is, puffed up with parochial self importance!


http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ola-Sturgeon-keep-Scotland-in-EU-France-Spain

The piece is quite long and starts as follows:

"NICOLA STURGEON&#8217;s bid to keep Scotland in the EU ended in humiliation today after European leaders told the Scottish First Minister they will not cut her a special deal.

By GREG HEFFER, POLITICAL REPORTER

Nicola Sturgeon saw her hopes of keeping Scotland in the EU dashed by France and Spain

The SNP leader had traveled to Brussels today in the hope of holding talks with Brussels chiefs over retaining Scotland&#8217;s EU membership, in defiance of last week&#8217;s Brexit vote.

But both France and Spain shot down her plans to negotiate a way for Scotland to remain part of the bloc.

Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy said Ms Sturgeon&#8217;s Scottish Government is not authorised to barter with other EU member states.

Following a summit of 27 EU leaders in Brussels, he told a news conference: "I want to be very clear Scotland does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union.

&#8220;Spain opposes any negotiation by anyone other than the government of United Kingdom.&#8221;

He added: "I am extremely against it, the treaties are extremely against it and I believe everyone is extremely against it. If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves.&#8221;

French president Francois Hollande backed up his Spanish counterpart, insisting exit talks will only be held with the UK Government and not the Holyrood administration.

He said: "The negotiations will be conducted with the UK, not with a part of the UK.&#8221;


----------



## JanetGeorge (30 June 2016)

popsdosh said:



			Talk or pontificate not sure. My upbringing and profile doesn't exactly fit in with his theory.
		
Click to expand...

lol, nor mine!


----------



## Judgemental (30 June 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Judgemental;   few have the ability to backtrack,  quite as you do.

Sincerely yours,  an East Anglian who manages to survive on turnips.
		
Click to expand...

Alec how could you, I am so hurt.

All have been doing is mirroring the example set by our leaders and potential leaders.

I believe Turnip Wine properly made is quite potent.


----------



## Judgemental (1 July 2016)

ester said:



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

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 (1 July 2016)

Judgemental said:



*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.

.
		
Click to expand...

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 (1 July 2016)

ester said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

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 (1 July 2016)

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


----------



## Judgemental (1 July 2016)

ester said:



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

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


----------



## ester (1 July 2016)

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 (1 July 2016)

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 (1 July 2016)

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 (1 July 2016)

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


----------



## popsdosh (1 July 2016)

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 (1 July 2016)

Fellewell said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (2 July 2016)

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 (30 September 2016)

Orangehorse said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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&#8217;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 &#8220;used their subsidies for important conservation work such as managing habitats&#8221;.

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 &#8220;reward major landowners and wealthy individuals on the basis of how much land they own&#8221; and only &#8220;minor weight&#8221; 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 &#8216;best placed&#8217; to help environment
Christopher Price, policy director at the Country, Land and Business Association (CLA), said: &#8220;Managing larger tracts of land can make a significant difference to enhancing our natural world because of the scale of operations.

&#8220;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.&#8221;

Andrew Clark, NFU director of policy, said: &#8220;British farmers create a countryside that works for everyone. They are the primary food producers growing the raw ingredients for the UK&#8217;s food and drink sector, worth £108bn &#8211; and supporting jobs for 3.9 million people.

 &#8220;The current financial support to farm businesses helps with the delivery of a secure food supply.

&#8220;We must remember&#8230; 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 &#8211; without taking wages.

&#8220;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.&#8221;

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 (1 October 2016)




----------



## Judgemental (1 October 2016)

popsdosh said:





Click to expand...

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 (1 October 2016)

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 (2 October 2016)

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&#8217;s (CAP) &#8220;single payment scheme&#8221; &#8211; subsidies paid out based on the area of land owned.
Painting a picture of &#8220;a broken system which sends public subsidies into billionaires&#8217; bank accounts,&#8221; the study reveals:

Individuals or families featured in the Sunday Times&#8217; Rich List own or control 16 businesses among the Top 100 beneficiaries, receiving a total of £10.6m last year in &#8220;single payment scheme&#8221; 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 &#8220;secrecy jurisdictions&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;s Billionaires Index who describes his operation receiving subsidies as a &#8220;hobby&#8221; (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&#8217;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.

&#8220;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&#8217;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,&#8221; said Hannah Martin of Greenpeace UK&#8217;s Brexit Response Team. &#8220;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&#8217;s largest subsidy payments don&#8217;t distinguish between the two. That can&#8217;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.&#8221;

Greenpeace UK&#8217;s investigation team scrutinised Government figures and Companies House documents to trace ownership of the hundred largest recipients of the &#8220;single payment scheme&#8221;, the core part of the CAP&#8217;s £2.4bn &#8220;Pillar One&#8221; 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&#8217;s Hannah Martin added:

&#8220;We cannot continue with a broken system which sends public subsidies into billionaires&#8217; 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.&#8221;

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.

&#8220;Hobby&#8221; 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&#8217;s training manager has previously told the Financial Times that it is &#8220;not run as a commercial operation&#8221; 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 &#8220;hobby&#8221;. 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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

Orangehorse said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

Orangehorse said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (3 October 2016)

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 (3 October 2016)

popsdosh said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (4 October 2016)

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 (4 October 2016)

Judgemental said:



			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
		
Click to expand...

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 (4 October 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			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 .
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Goldenstar (4 October 2016)

Lizzie66 said:



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

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 .


----------



## popsdosh (5 October 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			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 .
		
Click to expand...

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 (5 October 2016)

popsdosh said:



			So cheaper food was not a price worth paying for subsidies
		
Click to expand...

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 (5 October 2016)

ycbm said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (6 October 2016)

Goldenstar said:



			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 .
		
Click to expand...

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 (6 October 2016)

Like this one you mean 

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


----------



## jrp204 (6 October 2016)

ester said:



			Like this one you mean 

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

Click to expand...

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 (6 October 2016)

ester said:



			Like this one you mean 

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

Click to expand...

Yes just like this !!


----------



## fburton (7 October 2016)

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


----------



## Orangehorse (8 October 2016)

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 (9 October 2016)

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 (20 November 2017)

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 &#8220;means-tested livelihood support&#8221; 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 &#8220;end the situation where public subsidies are paid to owners of large estates without any public good received in return&#8221;.

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&#8217;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: &#8220;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.&#8221;

Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and environmentalist, said: &#8220;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.&#8221; Dame Caroline Spelman, who was environment secretary in David Cameron&#8217;s first government, said: &#8220;Bright Blue has made a useful contribution to the debate surrounding post-Brexit agricultural policy.&#8221;


----------



## Alec Swan (20 November 2017)

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 (20 November 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (22 November 2017)

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 (22 November 2017)

Orangehorse said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

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.
		
Click to expand...

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 &#8230;. and there are those who'd vote in Labour? 

Alec.


----------



## Orangehorse (22 November 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			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 &#8230;. and there are those who'd vote in Labour? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, little innocent me.


----------



## Judgemental (17 June 2018)

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 (18 June 2018)

Judgemental said:



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

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 (18 June 2018)

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 (18 June 2018)

fburton said:



			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

Click to expand...

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 (18 June 2018)

Molasses said:



			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  :-(
		
Click to expand...

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 (23 June 2018)

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 (27 June 2018)

Judgemental said:



			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
		
Click to expand...

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 (5 January 2020)

£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 (5 January 2020)

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 (5 January 2020)

honetpot said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (5 January 2020)

Good grief


----------



## Judgemental (5 January 2020)

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


----------



## honetpot (5 January 2020)

Judgemental said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (5 January 2020)

Judgemental said:



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

One should never assume.


----------



## Judgemental (5 January 2020)

honetpot said:



			. 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 extremely wealthy to want to do that.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Judgemental (5 January 2020)

honetpot said:



			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 extremely wealthy to want to do that.
		
Click to expand...

You are making a very fair point, as in the case of the ubiquitous, comment, "well they are not making it any more", if there are subsidies that in effect encourage ownership of land, in order to generate more and more subsidies, inevitably pushes up the price of land.

However, there is one fundamental that neutralises that particular abuse, 17 + million people voted to the leave the EU and one of the reasons was to scrap Farm Subsidies.

Technically on 1 February 2020 that is the end of EU Farm Subsidies as we know them.

Doubtless the government will introduce some sort of replacement for disadvantaged areas but legislation has to be passed through the House of Commons and Lords, between now and 30 January 2020 for that to happen in order to replace the abolished protocol.

One has always said, if one cannot make a farm pay without subsidies, then one should not be farming the property in the first place!


----------



## ycbm (6 January 2020)

Nothing changes about CAP payments until 2021, Judgemental.  Until then, we continue to pay in, the EU continues to pay out and our terms of trade remain the same as before we left. 

.


----------



## Judgemental (6 January 2020)

Yuletide Carols Bublé Murders said:



			Nothing changes about CAP payments until 2021, Judgemental.  Until then, we continue to pay in, the EU continues to pay out and our terms of trade remain the same as before we left.

.
		
Click to expand...

Or so you may wish and or have been led to believe. The more cautious realise that the words COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (which currently embraces 28 countries) ceases to embrace the United Kingdom on 1 February 2020. Bearing in mind there is the question of the new Primary Legislation going through Parliament, the Agricultural Bill, there are a considerable number of MP's asking a number of questions.

In July 2016 I posted the following on this very thread:

"But then, one can hardly have a referendum on the EU, without the inevitability of all this very interesting information coming to the surface. The Labour party who oppose hunting plainly support hunt's receiving money from Brussels. Weird".

South Dorset 7,805
Belvoir 5,660
Burton 1,593
Chesire 1,173
East Devon 1,699
East Essex 1,143
East Kent 1,776
Fernie 7,435
Grafton 1,106
Ledbury 5,024
South and West Wilts 1,059
Dartmoor 3,083
Melton 12,523
Puckeridge 1,215
Quorn 4,764
Braes of Derwent 1,120
Eggesford 1,692
Cotswold 11,761
Warwickshire 1,232
West Norfolk 2,530
Woodland and Pytchley 1,052"

Do you honestly expect the scrutineers of the new agricultural bill, to accept that tax payers money should be paid to packs of hounds. I gather this is a matter that is being discussed in depth in the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, 'coupled' to who should and who shouldn't receive these state benefits, immediately following the UK's departure from the EU on 1 February 2020.  Plainly one of the features detailed as a reason for leaving the EU, was to abolish the tenets of the Common Agricultural Policy. Clearly the people voted for the abolition of vast sums of money, being paid to the already very rich for very little reason, other that they owned a few acres.

The mere fact that DEFRA have the most extraordinarily comprehensive Web Site, detailing every single Farmer, Owner Occupier, Tenant and Landowner in miniscule detail. Along with a clear statement, that everything concerning Farm Subsidies has to be wholly transparent. Is indicative of the way in which the concept is going to be judged and monitored for the foreseeable future by Civil Servants, Politicians and such as the writer, which is inevitable, if one takes state hand outs from the UK as opposed to the EU.


----------



## honetpot (6 January 2020)

I have no idea why you think any changes should effect one set of landowners. As long as they are claiming for an activity lawfully what ever the goverment replaces these subsidies with the land owner will be able to claim them. I could claim them, but chose not to because I can not be bothered with the paperwork and the constraints it places on the landowner, you have to comply to claim the money.


----------



## Christmas Crumpet (7 January 2020)

The South Dorset actually have land they farm hence being able to apply for subsidies. No different to anyone else farming so why make a big deal out of it?!!!


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (7 January 2020)

Judgemental,  you really do type out of your ar5e sometimes.  
I really think you need a holiday .......


----------



## JanetGeorge (7 January 2020)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			Judgemental,  you really do type out of your ar5e sometimes. 
I really think you need a holiday .......
		
Click to expand...

lol, The Fuzzy Furry - Judgemental may NEED a holiday - at least it would shut him/her up for a bit if he goes somewhere with no signal (PLEASE!!)  I think it would beeasier just to ignore his/her rantings!


----------



## Judgemental (7 January 2020)

JanetGeorge said:



			lol, The Fuzzy Furry - Judgemental may NEED a holiday - at least it would shut him/her up for a bit if he goes somewhere with no signal (PLEASE!!)  I think it would beeasier just to ignore his/her rantings!
		
Click to expand...

Oh goodness Mrs George, so many moons have passed since you dropped the whip into me. I always find your chastisement a moment of old established honour and excitement. However enough of my respectful salaams. Look at what is currently coming out of No 10 in terms of new and innovative policies.


----------



## JanetGeorge (8 January 2020)

Judgemental said:



			Oh goodness Mrs George, so many moons have passed since you dropped the whip into me. I always find your chastisement a moment of old established honour and excitement. However enough of my respectful salaams. Look at what is currently coming out of No 10 in terms of new and innovative policies.
		
Click to expand...

And how much would you you expect from Boris after winning a HUGE majority shortly before Christmas, getting some new Ministers in over the holiday, and then coping with the US assassinationm of the most dangerous man in the world?  Hell, he's even had to delay his first budget because there are only so many hours in the day.  In the next month, I am sure you will see quite a lot of innovation but there is something called 'priorities'.  And fore the next month his priority will be delivering his manifesto promises and keeping us out of WW3, while continuing to back the USA in the Middle East.  And if you cannot see THAT, Judgmental, then I give up on any hopes of seeing common sense from you.


----------



## Judgemental (8 January 2020)

JanetGeorge said:



			And how much would you you expect from Boris after winning a HUGE majority shortly before Christmas, getting some new Ministers in over the holiday, and then coping with the US assassinationm of the most dangerous man in the world?  Hell, he's even had to delay his first budget because there are only so many hours in the day.  In the next month, I am sure you will see quite a lot of innovation but there is something called 'priorities'.  And fore the next month his priority will be delivering his manifesto promises and keeping us out of WW3, while continuing to back the USA in the Middle East.  And if you cannot see THAT, Judgmental, then I give up on any hopes of seeing common sense from you.
		
Click to expand...

Still as feisty as ever but I do respect you. When The Prime Minister (let's call him that and not Boris) talks of waste in government departments, DEFRA is high on the agenda, in terms of wasteful farm subsidies. The latter clearly being in The Prime Minister's sights during the Referendum. Just because the EU pay a bunch of Itinerant Peasant Goat Herds and the like along the Mediterranean coast, does not mean, the rich well heeled entitled of Warwickshire, for example, should be in receipt of similar handouts after 1 February 2020. Certainly not packs of hounds, that money can go to hospitals, schools and potholes.


----------



## Fred66 (8 January 2020)

Judgemental said:



			Still as feisty as ever but I do respect you. When The Prime Minister (let's call him that and not Boris) talks of waste in government departments, DEFRA is high on the agenda, in terms of wasteful farm subsidies. The latter clearly being in The Prime Minister's sights during the Referendum. Just because the EU pay a bunch of Itinerant Peasant Goat Herds and the like along the Mediterranean coast, does not mean, the rich well heeled entitled of Warwickshire, for example, should be in receipt of similar handouts after 1 February 2020. Certainly not packs of hounds, that money can go to hospitals, schools and potholes.
		
Click to expand...


The grants may change with regard to what they are given for post EU but many of the things that Landowners do are in the nations interests. Unless some recompense is given then it could well make it unviable for them to continue with these things. Things such as maintaining rights of way, granting permissive rights of way, cutting hedges, maintaining headlands etc.

The government will need to come up with a fair set of rules and administer the grants according to those rules and if the Hunts are eligible then they will benefit. You cannot go down the route of picking and choosing just because you happen to dislike hunts.


----------



## Orangehorse (8 January 2020)

The agriculture team in DEFRA fought very, very hard for British farmers (OK landowners) to be paid EXACTLY the same as other members of the EU since in general British farms were larger and if there had been a cut off for acreage in reducing payments then Britain would have been disproportionally affected, and we were paying in plenty of money remember.  I think that this is going back a bit, before the vast areas of East Germany and Poland were added, but the principle remained the same.

There have been some alterations to acreages and some minor tweaks, but if it is farm land then it doesn't matter who owns it, it all gets the same subsidy if the Cross Compliance regulations are complied with.

As I have stated previously, it was Labour Agriculture Minister Margaret Beckett who decided that it was landowners who should receive the subsidy, not the actual farmer - to the great astonishment of the farming community.  That means that owner-occupiers receive the full subsidy, whereas tenants and those who rent grass keep and have a grazing licience have to come to their own arrangements, which vary.

Apparently the equivalent amount of subsidy will continue to be paid, although farmers are expecting the terms and conditions to alter.  As for not being able to make a profit without subsidy - well as any farm accountant and they will tell you that virtually no farmer makes a profit from farming - but that it is more a subsidy to the consumer as it allows farmers to go on farming, producing food below the cost of production and therefore enabling food in the supermarkets to be plentiful and reasonably priced.


----------

