[Politics] Brexit

[Gwylan]

Little surprises me about Brexit these days...but this did!

Not sure why this is surprising. Vote Leave's chief economic cheerleader, Patrick Minford, said that the no-deal Brexit favoured by the ERG would wipe out British farming (he saw it as a good thing)

But it's a decision that makes political sense too. The government needs to concentrate on the northern urban areas that voted Labour for the first time, that's where funds are going to be directed. Farmers may be pissed off but the government knows that they vote solidly for the Tories when it comes to elections so there's no reason to give them any special treatment.

 

[Lever]

Not sure why this is surprising. Vote Leave's chief economic cheerleader, Patrick Minford, said that the no-deal Brexit favoured by the ERG would wipe out British farming (he saw it as a good thing)

But it's a decision that makes political sense too. The government needs to concentrate on the northern urban areas that voted Labour for the first time, that's where funds are going to be directed. Farmers may be pissed off but the government knows that they vote solidly for the Tories when it comes to elections so there's no reason to give them any special treatment.

....that many farmers effectively voted themselves out of business and didn't foresee it!

 

[Gwylan]

....that many farmers effectively voted themselves out of business and didn't foresee it!

It was crystal clear what would happen to farming in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This isn't 'Project Fear', this was what the Brexiteers said. For example, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Patrick Minford.

It also had its own union to listen to

Now, given all these warnings, it's indeed a mystery as to why farmers voted for it, but that's a different question and wasn't your original point. Your post said that farming being screwed came as a complete surprise ... it wasn't, it's something that was clearly signalled.

 

[sparkie]

All economic downside of Brexit will now be blamed on Corona Virus.

This isn't necessarily a bad lie - it'll mean everyone can be 'right' and makes it much easier for the country to rebuild.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

....that many farmers effectively voted themselves out of business and didn't foresee it!

I've not got too much sympathy for the farmers given that many of them did effectively signed their own death certificate by voting for Brexit and that despite hefty subsidies they moan like hell - and presumably wept no tears when other industries which didn't enjoy the same level of protection went under. (Plus I'm not a big supporter of 'country sports'.)
But traditionally they have been Tory friends (another reason) and they are being stitched up, so it is kind of intriguing. I think there are three 'drivers':

1. There is the Patrick Minford free market ideology and the argument that the flood of cheaper food from abroad is 'a good thing' (e.g. the poor spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food)

2. Then there is the Michael Gove vision of a more green countryside - i.e. simply less production/better stewardship of the rural environment i.e. subsidies but for different activities

3. There is also the example of New Zealand. The right love this as the narrative is that once the Kiwi farmers lost all government support it re-energised the sector.

Funnily enough - and as an arch Remainer - I can see some merit in each of these cases despite the fact that I can't stand Minford, detest Gove and always want to see us stuff the All Blacks!

Not sure how any of these will go down in rural communities and one suspects that anything engineered by this government will somehow leave the big landowners better off and the rural poor even poorer.

 

[Lever]

It was crystal clear what would happen to farming in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This isn't 'Project Fear', this was what the Brexiteers said. For example, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Patrick Minford.

It also had its own union to listen to

Now, given all these warnings, it's indeed a mystery as to why farmers voted for it, but that's a different question and wasn't your original point. Your post said that farming being screwed came as a complete surprise ... it wasn't, it's something that was clearly signalled.

Sorry for any misunderstanding Gwylan..
My intention was always to express surprise that the tory voting farmers didn't seem to reckon on what the government would do to them after getting back into power.

 

[Lever]

I've not got too much sympathy for the farmers given that many of them did effectively signed their own death certificate by voting for Brexit and that despite hefty subsidies they moan like hell - and presumably wept no tears when other industries which didn't enjoy the same level of protection went under. (Plus I'm not a big supporter of 'country sports'.)
But traditionally they have been Tory friends (another reason) and they are being stitched up, so it is kind of intriguing. I think there are three 'drivers':

1. There is the Patrick Minford free market ideology and the argument that the flood of cheaper food from abroad is 'a good thing' (e.g. the poor spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food)

2. Then there is the Michael Gove vision of a more green countryside - i.e. simply less production/better stewardship of the rural environment i.e. subsidies but for different activities

3. There is also the example of New Zealand. The right love this as the narrative is that once the Kiwi farmers lost all government support it re-energised the sector.

Funnily enough - and as an arch Remainer - I can see some merit in each of these cases despite the fact that I can't stand Minford, detest Gove and always want to see us stuff the All Blacks!

Not sure how any of these will go down in rural communities and one suspects that anything engineered by this government will somehow leave the big landowners better off and the rural poor even poorer.

Exactly!

 

[vegster]

I've not got too much sympathy for the farmers given that many of them did effectively signed their own death certificate by voting for Brexit and that despite hefty subsidies they moan like hell - and presumably wept no tears when other industries which didn't enjoy the same level of protection went under. (Plus I'm not a big supporter of 'country sports'.)
But traditionally they have been Tory friends (another reason) and they are being stitched up, so it is kind of intriguing. I think there are three 'drivers':

1. There is the Patrick Minford free market ideology and the argument that the flood of cheaper food from abroad is 'a good thing' (e.g. the poor spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food)

2. Then there is the Michael Gove vision of a more green countryside - i.e. simply less production/better stewardship of the rural environment i.e. subsidies but for different activities

3. There is also the example of New Zealand. The right love this as the narrative is that once the Kiwi farmers lost all government support it re-energised the sector.

Funnily enough - and as an arch Remainer - I can see some merit in each of these cases despite the fact that I can't stand Minford, detest Gove and always want to see us stuff the All Blacks!

Not sure how any of these will go down in rural communities and one suspects that anything engineered by this government will somehow leave the big landowners better off and the rural poor even poorer.

Some thoughts, driver 1, Food security is usually the top priority of any government anywhere historically, food riots often lead to revolution and regime change. We would not want to be beholden to foreign countries for the majority of our food supplies. Odd that the Tories, the party of " conserving " want to be so reckless.

Driver 2 , better stewardship, yes that is a wonderful aspiration, less intensive farming, less use of chemicals etc, more Set Aside land, encouraging more diverse habitat's and probably planting more trees, however, this all comes at a cost and I can't see the government supporting this financially given the huge amount of cash demands elsewhere in society. HS2 is going to cause a huge loss of ancient woodland and habitats, so in effect the government has to pay twice by ripping nature up then having to replace it elsewhere. Not very " Conservative " again !

Driver 3, if the government allows a free for all approach to farming surely you lose any benefits gained from driver 2 ? Consumers would be at the whim of the producers which will as ever, favour bigger producers via economy of scale and a reduction of choice and variety. I could see small, independent producers still going but having to sell products at a very high price to a very small wealthy clientele to keep going. If ever you have been to Middle Farm at Firle, you will know what I mean, marvellous ranges of Jams, Pickles and Preserves but boy do you pay for them !

Overall I think our farmers need to be supported but, I think they come a long way down the list at the moment, that will change when the subsidies are withdrawn and this issue moves to the front page. It's not a good time to find yourself Prime Minister tbh, Johnson's IN Tray is filling up alarmingly fast and he's not a natural born thinker or worker.

 

[WATFORD zero]

....that many farmers effectively voted themselves out of business and didn't foresee it!

I believe that one of the only positives of Brexit is that in the overall picture, the demographics who voted for it will be the ones effected the most, as we are now starting to see.

Not that it is a great help for those who voted Remain but happen to be in those same demographics

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Some thoughts, driver 1, Food security is usually the top priority of any government anywhere historically, food riots often lead to revolution and regime change. We would not want to be beholden to foreign countries for the majority of our food supplies. Odd that the Tories, the party of " conserving " want to be so reckless.

Driver 2 , better stewardship, yes that is a wonderful aspiration, less intensive farming, less use of chemicals etc, more Set Aside land, encouraging more diverse habitat's and probably planting more trees, however, this all comes at a cost and I can't see the government supporting this financially given the huge amount of cash demands elsewhere in society. HS2 is going to cause a huge loss of ancient woodland and habitats, so in effect the government has to pay twice by ripping nature up then having to replace it elsewhere. Not very " Conservative " again !

Driver 3, if the government allows a free for all approach to farming surely you lose any benefits gained from driver 2 ? Consumers would be at the whim of the producers which will as ever, favour bigger producers via economy of scale and a reduction of choice and variety. I could see small, independent producers still going but having to sell products at a very high price to a very small wealthy clientele to keep going. If ever you have been to Middle Farm at Firle, you will know what I mean, marvellous ranges of Jams, Pickles and Preserves but boy do you pay for them !

Overall I think our farmers need to be supported but, I think they come a long way down the list at the moment, that will change when the subsidies are withdrawn and this issue moves to the front page. It's not a good time to find yourself Prime Minister tbh, Johnson's IN Tray is filling up alarmingly fast and he's not a natural born thinker or worker.

I can see your points. I claim no expertise but I think the NZ agri turnaround was export-led. As you will tell from my preamble, I am generally less well-disposed towards 'our farmers' than you. But they have been very successful in mobilising public support and this might count for something with a governments whose only real priority is to keep power. (PS Been to Firle but only to the pub!)

 

[A1X]

Odd that the Tories, the party of " conserving " want to be so reckless.

The current Conservative party is not the old Conservative party in anything but name. It's not even the party of Thatcher, never mind Macmillan. It's morphed into a nativist party dominated by ideologues and used as a plaything by those with vested interests (through "think tanks" or simple money).

 

[Gwylan]

But traditionally they have been Tory friends (another reason) and they are being stitched up, so it is kind of intriguing.

As i said earlier, groups who always vote the same way are exactly the people you're happy to stitch up. Where else are they going to go?

New Labour did exactly the same thing - they were happy to screw over traditional supporters in the north because the feeling was that they wouldn't go anywhere else (they may have been wrong about that!)

Some thoughts, driver 1, Food security is usually the top priority of any government anywhere historically, food riots often lead to revolution and regime change. We would not want to be beholden to foreign countries for the majority of our food supplies.

But that's precisely what the Minfords and Rees-Moggs want - the reason they're happy to throw farmers under a tractor is because they think a no-deal, no-tariff Brexit will unleash a flood of cheap imports. They can afford to upset the 2% of the population who work in farming (who may well still vote Tory anyway) in favour of the 100% of consumers who benefit from cheap food

 

[vegster]

But that's precisely what the Minfords and Rees-Moggs want - the reason they're happy to throw farmers under a tractor is because they think a no-deal, no-tariff Brexit will unleash a flood of cheap imports. They can afford to upset the 2% of the population who work in farming (who may well still vote Tory anyway) in favour of the 100% of consumers who benefit from cheap food[/QUOTE]

If we rely on cheap foreign imports for the majority of our food we cease to have food security should something happen either in crop failures or transportation problems or political moves. It was only 80 years ago we had to " Dig For Victory " in order to survive despite ruling a quarter of the globe and having the worlds largest fleet of warships and cargo vessels. Of course Mogg and his ilk would not suffer but the majority of us would.

 

[Gwylan]

If we rely on cheap foreign imports for the majority of our food we cease to have food security should something happen either in crop failures or transportation problems or political moves. It was only 80 years ago we had to " Dig For Victory " in order to survive despite ruling a quarter of the globe and having the worlds largest fleet of warships and cargo vessels. Of course Mogg and his ilk would not suffer but the majority of us would.

I'm not saying that I agree - I think it's bonkers. I'm just pointing out what the government thinking is

 

[Bodian]

It's not a good time to find yourself Prime Minister tbh, Johnson's IN Tray is filling up alarmingly fast and he's not a natural born thinker or worker.

Doubt if he bothers looking in his in-tray somehow. He hasn't exactly been visible since the election - and will in any case divert any bad publicity onto others. That's what he's good at....

 

[schmunk]

1. There is the Patrick Minford free market ideology and the argument that the flood of cheaper food from abroad is 'a good thing' (e.g. the poor spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food)

 

[Pavilionaire]

Apropos of nothing, considering Boris has been on a break I thought he looked absolutely knackered last night - bags under his eyes etc.

 

[GT49er]

Apropos of nothing, considering Boris has been on a break I thought he looked absolutely knackered last night - bags under his eyes etc.

While in the post of Prime Minister, he will visibly age, quite rapidly; they all do.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Doubt if he bothers looking in his in-tray somehow. He hasn't exactly been visible since the election - and will in any case divert any bad publicity onto others. That's what he's good at....

Civil servants have been instructed to keep memos fairly brief, as he has a short attention span.

 

[A1X]

Apropos of nothing, considering Boris has been on a break I thought he looked absolutely knackered last night - bags under his eyes etc.

I dread to think what sort of dungeon Dominic Cummings is keeping him in