tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.comments2024-03-02T10:38:04.108+00:00BorthlasJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger6398125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-76155118249931616152024-03-02T10:38:04.108+00:002024-03-02T10:38:04.108+00:00Anon,
"We are all culpable in that because o...Anon,<br /><br /><i>"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> 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. <i>"wider societal indifference"</i> reflects the fact that the current approach is widely assumed to be the only one possible and given little thought outside the farming community.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-39731165399214751182024-03-01T14:39:23.101+00:002024-03-01T14:39:23.101+00:00Figures for lamb consumption are available on the ...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. Anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927397070465763305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-77288840870594951572024-03-01T14:29:33.725+00:002024-03-01T14:29:33.725+00:00I agree with your first paragraph but your second ...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.Anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927397070465763305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-29865740430068773872024-03-01T13:07:18.933+00:002024-03-01T13:07:18.933+00:00Anon,
"Lamb is an essential element of no on...Anon,<br /><br /><i>"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> 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.<br /><br />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.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-9802137116743127732024-03-01T09:03:44.327+00:002024-03-01T09:03:44.327+00:00"... they just have a state subsidised lifest..."... they just have a state subsidised lifestyle choice. Sadly, no one's willing to tell them that."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. CapMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-27019363440797401542024-03-01T09:03:31.020+00:002024-03-01T09:03:31.020+00:00Sorry John, I don't think you have understood ...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.Anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927397070465763305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-20756284561935406152024-03-01T07:14:32.875+00:002024-03-01T07:14:32.875+00:00I think I understand the basic point you are makin...I think I understand the basic point you are making in a somewhat forcible manner. I'm not at all sure about the <i>"unwanted, unneeded"</i> 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.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-50726514280864313322024-02-29T22:38:20.446+00:002024-02-29T22:38:20.446+00:00The idea that Sunak is backing sheep and cattle fa...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. Anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927397070465763305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-58973054673046335272024-02-28T13:29:34.471+00:002024-02-28T13:29:34.471+00:00As an aside, as pensioners with far too much time ...As an aside, as pensioners with far too much time on our hands (evidently) my wife and I thoroughly enjoy going on protest marches. It's healthy exercise, walking and shouting and waving flags, very suitable for an older person; a day out in the fresh air; good company; a pleasant glow of self-righteous anger; all the police we've encountered so far have been respectful and often good-humoured; altogether to be recommended as good for ones physical and mental health. And the occasional delightful surprise: on one of the anti-brexit marches in London, I forget which one, we had a morris dance group a little way behind us playing the Ode to Joy in 6/8 time! Beethoven would surely have approved.<br /><br />We happened to be in London on 11 November last year, you know, when the right wing hooligans attacked the police. We'd gone up for a concert and hadn't thought to join the march - a plague on both sides - but when a load of people of all ages and apparel carrying Palestinian flags piled onto the tube at Green Park we were struck by how friendly they all seemed. And a whole fleet of vans with "Heddlu" on the side parked along Westminster Bridge, just like Cathays Park! We might well join one of the marches if they're still going the next time we're in London, mainly because while not supporting one side or another we're totally p****** of by the Government and some sections of the media telling us which side we ought to be supporting.<br /><br />And now the Government are trying to take this away too. Why we can't have nice things.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Gavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-10671082119833404082024-02-25T10:34:05.780+00:002024-02-25T10:34:05.780+00:00As you point out having a genuine concern and know...As you point out having a genuine concern and knowing that acting on that concern will get one over your opponent aren't mutually exclusive. <br />Given that neither Tories nor Labour were willing to match the SNP's concern by tabling an original motion themselves which the SNP would support what should the SNP tactic be. <br /><br />The Hansard doesn't list who or what party has the moral high ground and how much of it they occupy. However the voting record in the House of Commons does give the public the opportunity to consider how parties or MPs compare to their own moral standards. <br /><br />Would the situation in Gaza have ending up being any worse by keeping to the one amendment rule and the subsequent Kier Starmer/Labour Party "embarrassment".<br /><br /><br /> CapMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-63817188226138517862024-02-25T08:28:34.916+00:002024-02-25T08:28:34.916+00:00"...they would not have expected that the Spe...<i>"...they would not have expected that the Speaker would allow the leader of the opposition to manipulate the Speaker by exploiting the Speaker's concern for the safety of MPs, that the Speaker would then ignore the advice of the Clerk and then change the rule so that there was an obvious benefit to Labour interests and detriment to the SNP's."</i> I can't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't addres the key point that, in choosing the subject and the wording of the motion, the SNP were playing games. <br /><br />I don't doubt for a minute that the SNP's opposition to what is happening in Gaza is genuine and deeply felt, but neither do I doubt, I'm afraid, that they saw an opportunity (even if subsequently denied them by the Speaker) to embarrass Labour, and pursuing that opportunity was a significant part of their goal. On a whole host of issues, using parliamentary procedures to try and embarrass political opponents is a justifiable tactic - they all do it. But I really don't feel that a question of life and death for thousands of people, where the SNP was already in possession of a large part of the moral high ground by taking a clear position, is the right time or place to deploy that tactic.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-35150488504473504602024-02-24T13:54:37.537+00:002024-02-24T13:54:37.537+00:00The SNP being sucked in might be a bit harsh. I th...The SNP being sucked in might be a bit harsh. I think that Sinn Fein have probably been sucked by the establishment at times though obviously not at the Westminster venue. <br /> <br />Whatever the motive or more likely motives the SNP had they would not have expected that the Speaker would allow the leader of the opposition to manipulate the Speaker by exploiting the Speaker's concern for the safety of MPs, that the Speaker would then ignore the advice of the Clerk and then change the rule so that there was an obvious benefit to Labour interests and detriment to the SNP's. <br /><br />Maybe the SNP should have expected such a devious trick. At least now everyone knows to expect such shenanigans in the future.<br /><br />As a certain R Burns wrote<br /><br />The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men<br />Gang aft agley,<br />An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,<br />For promis’d joy!<br /><br /> CapMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-52670349094546570342024-02-17T18:01:01.756+00:002024-02-17T18:01:01.756+00:00I know a fervent Welsh Republican, solidly left wi...I know a fervent Welsh Republican, solidly left wing, despises racism, who is voting Reform. His reason: the spread of Islam.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-35858905171864854662024-02-16T22:59:10.582+00:002024-02-16T22:59:10.582+00:00I think that couple had got it right.
Let me add a...I think that couple had got it right.<br />Let me add a similar experience ,not as a candidate – heaven forbid, but as a pounder of the streets taking an opinion poll in a valley constituency on a rainy Saturday morning.<br />This middle-aged woman I interviewed proudly announced that she had voted Plaid Cymru and would continue to do so. On answering the social questions, she gave a predictable socialist type of answer. Then, I asked the Defence/Nuclear questions to which she answered that it was important that we upgrade the weapons and take the first opportunity to nuke the USSR. <br />Spirit of BMEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-78436827663828292352024-01-31T17:00:35.335+00:002024-01-31T17:00:35.335+00:00Great analogy Great analogy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-68967789429116840612024-01-26T16:32:29.236+00:002024-01-26T16:32:29.236+00:00I'd sign up tomorrow.
See the world, learn n...I'd sign up tomorrow. <br /><br />See the world, learn new skills, supplement my pension - what's not to like? And no risk of shooting anyone except by accident, my eyesight being what it is. <br /><br />Gavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-89426702294926149532024-01-23T08:38:36.163+00:002024-01-23T08:38:36.163+00:00There is an increasingly visible link between old ...There is an increasingly visible link between old TV/radio comedy scripts and current/recent government policy decisions. As this goes on we may even get to a point where fictional characters will be replicated on the Commons benches. While those old programmes were entertaining the antics of the current crop of politicians are most definitely not. dafishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04216920242825385976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-29647371043926526342024-01-22T09:52:21.528+00:002024-01-22T09:52:21.528+00:00Spirit,
The two small elements of doubt that I ha...Spirit,<br /><br />The two small elements of doubt that I have about that theory are: firstly, the assumption that there is (or ever could be) a 'socialist majority' in the Lords (Sunak saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so) and secondly, that it implies that Sunak is clever enough to have thought it up. The evidence for the latter isn't exactly strong.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-48579854171103358692024-01-21T22:35:59.356+00:002024-01-21T22:35:59.356+00:00The expected battle with the Lords should be avoid...The expected battle with the Lords should be avoid.<br />The leader of the Labour Party – Mr Starman, should contact the socialist majority in the Lords and get them to put his Bill on a fast-track back to the Commons without a dot being changed. This will get the Bill into law and Little, little Risky Sunak will have to deliver, as this is the last card he has to play. He will be toast, as the courts will not allow the flights to happen. Risky’s, plan could be all along, no matter what he said, is to get the Lords to stop it dead and go into an election with an excuse that it was -those ghastly socialists that did it and if you want more of that vote for Mr Starman.<br />Spirit of BMEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141861290396459458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-16280629052517673652024-01-21T11:12:19.892+00:002024-01-21T11:12:19.892+00:00I wish tax cuts could mean that. Unfortunately the...I wish tax cuts could mean that. Unfortunately the reverse is true. It means that government have the reason/excuse to reduce funding to local governments. This means that in order to meet their statutory responsibilities town and county councils throughout Wales are having to increase rates by a significant amount, Not just the local authorities, Police and emergency services also need to increase their precepts due to rising inflation and reduced funding. I do mean reduced in real terms not the amounts handed out. <br />Tax cuts with their reduction in public spending result in a significant rise in taxation for almost all of us.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02199538597477712978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-86966538715922836172024-01-16T07:52:04.768+00:002024-01-16T07:52:04.768+00:00You are absolutely correct in your assertion that ...You are absolutely correct in your assertion that there are plenty of serious injustices in our recent history. The PO case stands out perhaps because of its scale and how it affected people - prison sentences, financial ruin etc. All these issues serve to highlight how the tables are tilted in favour of powerful vested interests and away from the ordinary rank and file. Greed and a sense of entitlement that snuffs out any willingness to admit to errors are major factors among the elites that think they run everything. Yet when caught out they plead innocence, ignorance or seek to detach from the guilt and align with the wronged ( Ed Davey, take a bow) Most of the politicians involved probably did not gain financially but their lack of diligence in post tells all we need to know about them. dafishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04216920242825385976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-13995341632970914462024-01-08T10:03:32.858+00:002024-01-08T10:03:32.858+00:00Spirit,
I understand the bit about "This for...Spirit,<br /><br />I understand the bit about <i>"This formula is also used in industry as a basis of evaluating major strategic decision that could destroy the company, so those projects must have a plus 70% of being successful"</i>, but I'm not at all sure that it's applicable in the way that migrants make decisions as to whether to make the journey or not. Whether reducing the chance of success from 90% plus to something less than 70% acts as a sufficient deterrent seems to me to depend on their assessment of the consequences of the alternative (i.e. not making the journey). I'm also far from convinced that the UK government has done anything like enough work on the implications to be able to conclude that sending a tiny number to Rwanda will reduce the assessment of the likely success rate for migrants, let alone do so by the sort of margin you suggest. I rather suspect that the assessment of Sunak, when he was chancellor, that it would not work is rather closer to the truth than his claimed current assessment that it will.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-83484486559531696102024-01-07T21:41:29.308+00:002024-01-07T21:41:29.308+00:00Joy ,joy Little ‘Spliff’ Cameron is back in town. ...Joy ,joy Little ‘Spliff’ Cameron is back in town. I confidently predict his presence in the smoked filled rooms in the Palace of Westminster, will bring a new atmosphere to all who meet him.<br />The Rwanda plans of itself will not stop the boats ,I believe it is a plan to break the business model of the criminal syndicates who have been very successful ,because they offer a 90% plus chance of those that risk life and limb to get a successful outcome. The transportation to Rwanda by the first and few is a plan to reduce that expectation to 70% and below. That number has been seen before when people reassess their chances before leaving home , knowing they could lose everything and their life.<br />This formula is also used in industry as a basis of evaluating major strategic decision that could destroy the company , so those projects must have a plus 70% of being successful. <br /><br />Spirit of BMEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141861290396459458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-61131946143341067642024-01-02T17:34:04.213+00:002024-01-02T17:34:04.213+00:00Cummings is only toxic by our "conservative&q...Cummings is only toxic by our "conservative" standards. It is quite evident that Sunak has radically different standards, if any at all, the kind found among many of the recent leadership teams of the Conservative Party. The gap between big "C" and little "c" has seldom been greater and this is just one more piece of evidence of that gap. dafishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04216920242825385976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-6651169211784574422024-01-02T11:27:47.497+00:002024-01-02T11:27:47.497+00:00I can't honestly say that I remember taking pa...I can't honestly say that I remember taking part in any such debates - age is catching up with my memory, I hope not selectively so. I do know that any residual sympathy that I might have had for the USSR and its leaders' claims to be socialist supporters of liberation movements disappeared at the age of 17 in 1968 after the invasion of the then Czechoslovakia. Too young to remember Hungary, or it might have been sooner.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.com