For some that might be true, but that is not how I think policies have evolved. Confusion and incompetence is a bigger part of the story. The Treasury, as always, just looks at money, especially when it isn't given a good story about what the money buys. In the past the Department of Agriculture was arguably captured by farming interests and gave priority to food security. Now, DEFRA is too large, captured by environmental lobbyists, and incompetent in administrative terms. So it can't devise or implement any scheme that achieves the environmental goals that it espouses but leaves farmers stranded by not fighting for the maintenance of existing support until new arrangements are working smoothly.
Further, different bits of the department do different things without understanding the consequences. The permanent shambles over animal health, slaughter policies, etc is an illustration. From all too much experience I have a very low opinion of the British civil service, but DEFRA comes close to being the worst department. Its defenders would argue that it is expected to reconcile impossible objectives with politicians who have limited understanding of and even less interest in most of the issues. That may be true but the outcome demonstrates just how awful the impact of incompetent interventions can be.
This is part of my view of farming's partial responsibility for the mess. A New Zealand style no (or limited) intervention policy might be harsh but at least it is clear. In such a regime the public can have hedgerows or grazing animals or whatever but only if the government pays for it - fully! Attempts to pacify external lobby groups will always fail because they want more and more costly interventions without paying for anything. That isn't just true for farming. The current mess of the water industry is ultimately the same story.
Ah, so true Gordon, the law of unintended consequences looms large, whether intended or not. And of course, there is responsibility across the board. Not just in policy, Government, Big Business, Big Agriculture, but for the consumer too. We all have a hand to play in everything that happens, it's just that it's often easier for us (the consumers mostly) to point a finger of blame on someone else!
It is also clear that regardless of sentiment and opinion, this is the whole point of the exercise. By forcing people off the land and with the land deemed 'unprofitable', it is treated as just another commodity to be traded and abused to fit any current narrative whilst reducing the option of food security. In other words, be careful what you wish for, you might just end up eating non-food food!
The Reply system on Substack doesn't work properly for anything other than very short pieces of text. Please see my separate comment as a response to your comment.
Thank you for this real eye-opener. It's a reflection on the state of our mainstream news media that those of us who want to be properly informed are now relying a great deal on Substack.
A lot of this is time and space. Few newspapers or magazines will publish a piece of 3,000 words on such a topic and even then this would be something written by their own journalists. TV news and current affairs programs are focused on visual material and reporting conventions - i.e. on farming they would focus on images of arable fields and herds of cattle with heavily edited on-camera interviews that say almost nothing. The content of a half-hour program wouldn't add up to a 1,000 word article.
For some that might be true, but that is not how I think policies have evolved. Confusion and incompetence is a bigger part of the story. The Treasury, as always, just looks at money, especially when it isn't given a good story about what the money buys. In the past the Department of Agriculture was arguably captured by farming interests and gave priority to food security. Now, DEFRA is too large, captured by environmental lobbyists, and incompetent in administrative terms. So it can't devise or implement any scheme that achieves the environmental goals that it espouses but leaves farmers stranded by not fighting for the maintenance of existing support until new arrangements are working smoothly.
Further, different bits of the department do different things without understanding the consequences. The permanent shambles over animal health, slaughter policies, etc is an illustration. From all too much experience I have a very low opinion of the British civil service, but DEFRA comes close to being the worst department. Its defenders would argue that it is expected to reconcile impossible objectives with politicians who have limited understanding of and even less interest in most of the issues. That may be true but the outcome demonstrates just how awful the impact of incompetent interventions can be.
This is part of my view of farming's partial responsibility for the mess. A New Zealand style no (or limited) intervention policy might be harsh but at least it is clear. In such a regime the public can have hedgerows or grazing animals or whatever but only if the government pays for it - fully! Attempts to pacify external lobby groups will always fail because they want more and more costly interventions without paying for anything. That isn't just true for farming. The current mess of the water industry is ultimately the same story.
Ah, so true Gordon, the law of unintended consequences looms large, whether intended or not. And of course, there is responsibility across the board. Not just in policy, Government, Big Business, Big Agriculture, but for the consumer too. We all have a hand to play in everything that happens, it's just that it's often easier for us (the consumers mostly) to point a finger of blame on someone else!
Home Office might give DEFRA a run for the dysfunctional top spot. Excellent article.
It is also clear that regardless of sentiment and opinion, this is the whole point of the exercise. By forcing people off the land and with the land deemed 'unprofitable', it is treated as just another commodity to be traded and abused to fit any current narrative whilst reducing the option of food security. In other words, be careful what you wish for, you might just end up eating non-food food!
The Reply system on Substack doesn't work properly for anything other than very short pieces of text. Please see my separate comment as a response to your comment.
Thank you for this real eye-opener. It's a reflection on the state of our mainstream news media that those of us who want to be properly informed are now relying a great deal on Substack.
A lot of this is time and space. Few newspapers or magazines will publish a piece of 3,000 words on such a topic and even then this would be something written by their own journalists. TV news and current affairs programs are focused on visual material and reporting conventions - i.e. on farming they would focus on images of arable fields and herds of cattle with heavily edited on-camera interviews that say almost nothing. The content of a half-hour program wouldn't add up to a 1,000 word article.
Great article, very clear and informative, thanks.