Opinion: Clarkson is wrong to wage war on regulation
© MAG/Colin Miller A Farmers Weekly headline last week read: “Jeremy Clarkson demands a halving of red tape” . “Yeah” roared the farming community in response. “You tell ‘em, Jez.”
So now, because no one else is going to do it, I have to write a column for you explaining why Jeremy Clarkson, the most popular man in British agriculture, is wrong.
I used to be a big fan of his, back in the 1980s, when he was an obscure, curly-haired journalist with a column in, I think, Car magazine.
See also: Clarkson and 2,000 farmers demand halving of rural red tape
About the author
At that stage, bearing in mind that I was trying to fit in at an all-boys school and not at all confident in my own masculinity, his writing tone spoke directly to me.
Over the intervening years, I have become less enamoured with his faux-naif style, his machismo and his tendency to punch downwards – both physically and metaphorically – while he seems to cultivate these characteristics as part of his media persona.
I know many farmers, at least those with a good enough broadband and an Amazon Prime subscription, have taken great comfort in seeing Clarkson’s Farm depict farming in a way that is recognisable to them.
I really enjoyed watching it for that reason, too. It’s good entertainment and an antidote to John Craven in his red Gore-Tex jacket, interviewing a basket weaver and flogging his calendar.
Extend his remit
I am curious that Mr Clarkson now seeks to extend his remit to influencing agricultural policy.
He and others have sent a letter to the prime minister asking for less farming regulation. You can find the letter online if you wish but, in summary, it’s a whinge about “red tape”.
It falls short of saying which 50% of legislation could go and instead sticks to a populist tone best summarised as “leave us to get on with it and we will do all the good things and none of the bad things”.
Naturally, the letter has gained lots of support from farmers: a vote in favour of motherhood and apple pie.
The letter also includes a strangely menacing phrase. “We will no longer passively watch officials seeking to appease the insatiable demands of a few self-righteous campaigners. There are more of us and we are more determined.”
Defensible reason
My beef is with that bit of the letter. History shows that good things rarely happen on their own and most regulations exist for a defensible reason.
They are there to avoid people being poisoned, to protect farmworkers from injury, to prevent animal cruelty, to stop fraudulent grant claims or pollution.
Is the letter saying we should ban campaigning on these issues?
The cop-out is that they are only asking for a 50% cut in regulation. It means they can say “I didn’t mean that one”, while someone who actually has to deal with the issues patiently explains things to them.
It is such an enormous privilege to farm a corner of Britain that it ought to come with obligations.
It is a better look to honourably bear your responsibilities to others than it is to ask for yet more privilege.
Mr Clarkson has made a very successful career for himself in television by smashing up caravans and blowing up houses.
To be as successful in agriculture, he may need to work on his softer skills and see that not every complex problem has a simple solution.