Britain may need to 'dig for survival', agriculture minister says..

[chem1st]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9996129/Britain-may-need-to-dig-for-survival-minister-says.html

 

David Heath, the agriculture minister, revived the memory of the Second World War government campaign that urged the public to “dig for victory”, as raised the prospect of “digging for survival” in future.

Britain wrongly assumed that it would be possible to import all the food the country needed from abroad, he said, as experts warned that food prices would rise dramatically if the supermarket supply suffered.

“With an increasing population, increasing demand not just in this country but across the world, we are going to have to increase food production,” Mr Heath said.

“We made a huge mistake a few years ago when the idea got around that we didn’t need to produce in the agricultural sector any more, that we would be able to buy our way through whatever was necessary to feed the country.”

The minister added: “Once we used to ‘dig for victory’. There may come a time soon when we need to ‘dig for survival’.”

 

Yet people who want to pay to grow food can't access idle land, and people who own lots of land get paid to leave it idle!

 

A lot of the money 'we send to the EU', comes back to the UK and is paid to people who own lots of land, because they own lots of land. They call it 'agricultural subsidy', yet you don't have to grow anything, you just have to own land. Many of these people receiving the subsidy are in the house of lords and inherited vast amounts of land. They don't work 'their' land, and in many cases they haven't even walked upon it!

 

Some people getting paid to own land in Britain are members of the royal families of other countries.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/revealed-how-we-pay-our-richest-landowners-millions-subsidies

 

Were David Cameron to announce tomorrow that some of the wealthiest landowners in the country would receive millions in subsidies from the taxpayer, there would be predictable outrage. Yet, in the form of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), such a programme already exists. The average British household contributes £245 a year to the CAP, most of which, a New Statesman investigation has found, is handed to the wealthiest landowners. Originally established with the intention of supporting small farmers and reducing Europe’s reliance on food imports, the CAP, which accounts for 43 per cent (€55bn) of the EU budget, has become a slush fund for assorted dukes, earls and princes.

 

A freedom of information request by the NS to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that claimants last year included the Duke of Westminster (net worth: £7.4bn), who was paid £748,716 for his ownership of Grosvenor Farms, the Duke of Buccleuch (£180m), who received £260,273, the Duke of Devonshire (£700m), who received £251,729, and the Duke of Atholl, who was paid £231,188 for his 145,000 acre Blair Castle Estate.

 

It was also a lucrative year for the Windsor family. The Queen received £415,817 for The Royal Farms and £314,811 for the Duchy of Lancaster, while Prince Charles was paid £127,868 for the Duchy of Cornwall. Similarly well remunerated was Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar, who netted £273,905 for his 2,000 acre Glympton Estate in Oxfordshire, alleged to have been purchased with the proceeds of the 1985 Al-Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia.

 

If we need to dig for survival, then we clearly need to have land reform.

 

Many people wish to grow food, and are happy to pay to do so. But they cannot access land.

 

Many people are paid to own land so that they can grow food, but they do not grow food!

 

Why people are not outraged I do not know.

 

You can buy a pitchfork for under an adult's hourly wage (£5) at quality save. The way things are going, you are going to need one.

[tinfoilhat]

I've missed these threads. I've not missed the hours I've put in taking them apart only to get no response, but I've missed them none the less.

[MrSmith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9996129/Britain-may-need-to-dig-for-survival-minister-says.html

 

David Heath, the agriculture minister, revived the memory of the Second World War government campaign that urged the public to “dig for victory”, as raised the prospect of “digging for survival” in future.

Britain wrongly assumed that it would be possible to import all the food the country needed from abroad, he said, as experts warned that food prices would rise dramatically if the supermarket supply suffered.

 

It wasn't Britain that wrongly assumed, it was the idiots in government that wrongly assumed.

[Janus]

Chem, WHY are these land owners being paid not to grow anything on their land? There must be a reason, bizare though it may be, but what is it?

[chem1st]

Chem, WHY are these land owners being paid not to grow anything on their land? There must be a reason, bizare though it may be, but what is it?

 

Because they have power, and are willing to use it for their own gain at the expense of wider society.

[Oldtrout]

Quote from that article ... “We made a huge mistake a few years ago when the idea got around that we didn’t need to produce in the agricultural sector any more, that we would be able to buy our way through whatever was necessary to feed the country.”

 

I'm sure the idea will get round that the agricultural sector can now increase their production once again. Indeed, I'm sure there are many farmers who are not producing at full capacity and would welcome the chance to do more.

 

They'll do the 'digging' for us, and they'll get paid to do it.

 

The supermarkets could then supply us with British lamb, beef, pork, chicken, bacon, beans, potatoes, strawberries etc etc..... and we could eat whatever was in season.

 

I'm sure there are some things we couldn't produce in this country, but I'm sure we would 'survive' without them.

[Janus]

Because they have power, and are willing to use it for their own gain at the expense of wider society.

 

Chem, I am not doubting these land owners have power (and wealth), but from the perspective of "the payer" what is the reason they are being paid?

[denlin]

That's a chuffing good un when they want to spend millions dumping the old bat who got us in this mess in the first place:rolleyes:

[Riannon]

Quote from that article ... “We made a huge mistake a few years ago when the idea got around that we didn’t need to produce in the agricultural sector any more, that we would be able to buy our way through whatever was necessary to feed the country.”

 

I'm sure the idea will get round that the agricultural sector can now increase their production once again. Indeed, I'm sure there are many farmers who are not producing at full capacity and would welcome the chance to do more.

 

They'll do the 'digging' for us, and they'll get paid to do it.

 

The supermarkets could then supply us with British lamb, beef, pork, chicken, bacon, beans, potatoes, strawberries etc etc..... and we could eat whatever was in season.

 

I'm sure there are some things we couldn't produce in this country, but I'm sure we would 'survive' without them.

 

Having just driven half the length of Britain I'm puzzled as to where all this available land might be. The fields seem to be pretty full of sheep, cattle, pigs and crops. Even Graves Park seems to be half full of farm animals.

 

There are areas where trees are being grow, but apart from that and areas like grouse moors where not much grows anyhow, I'm damned if I can find great swathes of land that aren't being tilled.

[tinfoilhat]

Chem, WHY are these land owners being paid not to grow anything on their land? There must be a reason, bizare though it may be, but what is it?

 

Right, fields are left as set aside land. The eu will pay a farmer x amount for them not to grow crops - let it go back to nature. This helps the soil (and nature) recover. It's been done in Europe for hundreds of years, and with intensive farming techniques, it's vital. Do you know where they don't do it ? Brazil, where you'll find swathes of desert after farmers over there have sucked the life from it.

 

Do we need to farm every square foot ? Chem would have us turn the peak district into a subsistence farming shanty town. Is set aside corruption proof ? Of course not but in theory it's well worth doing.