One of the key weapons
in the armoury of a desperate politician is to announce a ‘crackdown’ on something
or other. It’s not unique to the Tories – I seem to remember a certain T. Blair
announcing ‘crackdowns’ on various perceived sins – although it’s more likely
to come from a government which has the power to do something than from an opposition
which does not. It was Sunak’s turn yesterday,
with his pledge to ‘crack down’ on mob rule. Announcing a crackdown always
sounds forceful and macho – although it doesn’t exactly play to Sunak’s visible
strengths. Or even his invisible ones. The most useful crackdown would probably
be a crackdown on the announcement of crackdowns.
‘Mob rule’ isn’t
something which is easily defined either – at least, not by someone who wants to
prevent people blocking the streets protesting about climate change or war
whilst also joining in with those who use their tractors to block the streets
in protest against revisions to farming subsidies. Whilst I would describe
neither as ‘mob rule’, in Sunakland it seems that either there are good mobs and
bad mobs or else the definition of a mob is such that protests against a Labour
government in Wales are magically excluded. And that, of course, is part of the
point – it’s really divergence from his own views on which he wishes to crack down.
I’ll admit that I’m
not sufficiently familiar with the details of farming finances and subsidies to
judge whether the Welsh Government’s proposals are as bad as some farmers are
making out. What I do know is that any Brexit promise to maintain the level of
farm finance was as false as all the other promises, and that a reduction in
funding inevitably leads to replacing previous schemes. George Monbiot argued
yesterday that the differences between the English schemes and the Welsh schemes
are not as great as they have been presented by some, and that “The main
difference is that in Wales, the offer for farmers is better – with more
consistent payments and a smoother transition from the old system”. If that
were true, it would mean that Sunak was busily supporting farmers who are
arguing that a deal better than that which his government has offered isn’t
good enough. An entirely normal level of honesty from the current UK
government. I suspect that the truth is more nuanced. Farming subsidy schemes
are complex and any change means, especially if accompanied by an overall reduction
in funds, that some farmers will inevitably lose out, even if the Welsh scheme
is indeed better overall than the English equivalent. And that will undoubtedly
impact rural communities in Wales, for whom the farming industry is still a key
factor.
The easiest ‘solution’
would be to ensure that the pre-Brexit levels and methods of funding were
maintained, a matter which is wholly in the hands of one Rishi Sunak. Joining
in with protests which are effectively against his own government’s actions is
taking a leaf straight out of the playbook of Welsh Labour members in relation
to hospital and school reorganisations, so there isn’t a lot of moral high
ground for Drakeford et al in this. Although constrained by Westminster
decisions on funding, the Welsh Government does have some room for manoeuvre on
what is still, officially, a consultation process. I really hope that they will
listen carefully and use that room for manoeuvre. It’s doubtful, however, that
they will be able to please everybody and still achieve the aims that they’ve
set out for themselves. Calling on Sunak to intervene and over-ride whatever is
decided in Wales (as some of the protesters have done) is counter-productive
for an industry which has more direct influence over what is decided in Cardiff
than it does over what is decided in London, and is, instead, playing to the
agenda of people whose aims go way beyond reforming farming subsidies.
Sunak’s apparent ‘support’
for Welsh farmers is a double-edged sword, and his real agenda is about party
political advantage and undermining Welsh democracy. If English farmers start
protesting with tractors in the centre of London, he’ll soon enough be ‘cracking
down’ on the ‘mob’.
Posts
8 comments:
The idea that Sunak is backing sheep and cattle farmers in Wales is laughable. The guy's a vegetarian.whose government has negotiated trade agreements that will inevitably lead to imports that undercut farmers in the UK. However, there is no one in this debate telling the truth. The facts are that most farms in Wales are producing an unwanted, unneeded, unprofitable product on agriculturally unproductive land and in an environmentally unfriendly way.. Many farmers in Wales don't have a business - they just have a state subsidised lifestyle choice. Sadly, no one's willing to tell them that.
I think I understand the basic point you are making in a somewhat forcible manner. I'm not at all sure about the "unwanted, unneeded" description of the output of Welsh agriculture. We do all need food of some sort, and it has to be produced somewhere. Looking at it in purely financial terms, it may well be that some foods could be 'better' produced elsewhere, but there are other considerations, not least of which are food security and community cohesion. Your comment about some of the production being environmentally unfriendly is valid, of course - but importing food which might also be produced in an environmentally unfriendly way from elsewhere isn't particularly environmentally-friendly either. The Welsh government is trying, through the new subsidy regime, to balance a range of factors, including those relating to land use and the environment. Whether they have got the balance 'right' (whatever 'right' means) is a matter of opinion, but that aim is surely a sensible one.
Sorry John, I don't think you have understood my point at all. In relation to most farms in Wales, the 'food security' argument is utterly irrelevant. If you're a potatoe farmer in Pembs, a dairy farmer in Sirgar or a arable farmer in the Vale of Glamorgan, it has some validity. But most farmers in Wales are producing lamb or beef - predominantly lamb. Lamb is an essential element of no one's diet (hence unneeded) and by most people eaten infrequently or not at all (hence unwanted). Without subsidies, the upland sheep industry would become unsustainable overnight - and from a food security perspective, we would not miss it. The Senedd research unit produces some useful stuff on the state of farming in Wales. Actual facts from which uou can drawn your own conclusions about the future of farming here. My 'forcible' language derives from my passion for the environment. There are two crises that we face. The climate crisis, about which we in Wales can do very little ( which is not to say we shouldn't do everything that we can) and a nature crisis, about which we can do a very great deal indeed (because we have largely caused it). But most people don't to give a toss about the latter to the point where they seem content to keep on paying farners to continue making it worse, despite deriving little or no other benefits from those payments. It's beyond depressing.
"... they just have a state subsidised lifestyle choice. Sadly, no one's willing to tell them that."
Overwhelmingly we as consumers have a subsidised lifestyle. Others and environments somewhere pay for us to enjoy under priced energy, food, goods and services. As a society we don't want to hear that never mind accept paying the full costs or changing our lifestyles.
Condensing the discussion down to pointing the finger at one particular group or sector is basically a way of comforting oneself that responsibility and therefore blame lies with others elsewhere.
Anon,
"Lamb is an essential element of no one's diet (hence unneeded) and by most people eaten infrequently or not at all (hence unwanted)" I have no figures to substantiate an alternative view about the unwanted part, although it doesn't feel right to me. There certainly is a price deterrent to eating more lamb. But, if those of us partial to the odd lamb chop stopped eating lamb completely, we would be getting our protein somewhere else, wouldn't we? That is to say, we need food; whether we 'need' any particular item on the menu is another question entirely. Any and every individual foodstuff could be subjected to the same argument: we don't 'need' any one of them individually, but we do need the nutrition which they provide collectively.
I do take your point about both the climate crisis and the nature crisis. The question is about how we balance the production of food with taking action on both of those crises - over what timescale, and at what cost to individuals and communities in Wales. That, I think is what the Welsh government is trying to do, but there is no way of doing it which leaves everybody happy. Whether they've got it 'right' or not, within the constraints under which they operate, is another question. And CapM makes a good point - whilst farming subsidies might be more obvious than some other subsidies, agriculure is far from being the only part of our daily life which isn't being run on a strict cost attribution basis.
I agree with your first paragraph but your second is wide of the mark. The nature crisis is primarily (but no means exclusively) driven by changes in agricultural practice and the intensification of farming. We are all culpable in that because of our demand for cheap food and our willingness to actively pay farmers (through subsidies over many decades)to make those changes. But the fact is that in Wales we have an opportunity to incentivise farmers and landowners to do things very differently and put right those past wrongs with next to no effect on our food supply. We are in danger of passing up that opportunity through a mixture of ignorant resistance (on the part of some farmers) and wider societal indifference.
Figures for lamb consumption are available on the internet, as is the Senedd research I mentioned on what is produced by farming in Wales. You have literally made my point for me when you suggest that it you gave up lamb (which I haven't asked you to do - although it would probably be beneficial to your health!) you could switch to some other form of protein. Many others are available - and they can be produced far more efficiently at much less environmental cost.
Anon,
"We are all culpable in that because of our demand for cheap food and our willingness to actively pay farmers (through subsidies over many decades)to make those changes. But the fact is that in Wales we have an opportunity to incentivise farmers and landowners to do things very differently and put right those past wrongs with next to no effect on our food supply" I'm not sure that there's anything there that I'd disagree with - in principle, at least. There are questions though about the costs and timescales of doing it in a way which does not damage communities. I thought that it was what the Welsh government was trying to do, although I doubt that they have adequate resources to do it effectively without significant impact on individuals and communities - and that's where I thought the disagreements lay. Part of the problem lies in the word 'incentivise'; proposals which lead to a reduction in income won't always look like 'incentives' they may actually be only ways of reducing the reduction in income. And it's true that some farmers (nothing unique about farmers here!) are deeply small 'c' conservative, and would resist change even if it were to their benefit. The pursuit of 'cheap food' has been government policy seemingly forever, whichever party is in power. I'd agree that challenging that priority is long overdue, but the implications are enormous and it needs a debate much wider than the current one which is largely between government and farmers. "wider societal indifference" reflects the fact that the current approach is widely assumed to be the only one possible and given little thought outside the farming community.
Post a Comment