Opinion: Starmer and Reeves are like Laurel and Hardy
© RGR Collection/Alamy Stock Photo Picture the scene – prime minister Keir Starmer turns to his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and says: “That’s another fine mess you’ve got me in.”
Watching this government is like watching an episode of Laurel and Hardy.
Unfortunately, not as entertaining but equally comical as it continues to use the economic model of standing in a bucket while trying to lift itself out using only the handle.
See also: Opinion – I can’t avoid ‘dreadful’ task of gifting farms to my kids
About the author
My teenage daughter, studying economics, has a better grasp of how to grow an economy than this lot.
I find it astounding that this government, with its £22bn black hole, hasn’t the vision to put agriculture and food security first – thereby helping to balance our trade deficit and providing food and jobs for UK citizens.
Instead, it seems more important to fund initiatives such as the Indian space programme and blindly following a plan of net zero, putting our industry at a disadvantage while handing China a free pass.
At every opportunity it makes it harder to farm – introducing inheritance tax changes and an immediate cut in farm payments (to a capped sum of £7,500), planning a fertiliser tax, closing the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund, and mismanaging our waterways, rendering large parcels of prime agricultural land undrainable.
Weaponising agricultural policy
Let’s not forget compulsory purchase laws to be introduced to turn farmland into housing at a price way beneath the proper market value of that land. A clear representation of Fabian communism.
The present government is now weaponising agricultural policy in a way that seems deliberately awkward and obstructive.
And while I’m no fan of subsidies, parts of the industry need them to continue to be viable.
The Sustainable Farming Incentive, in particular, has been a thorn in my side.
As an entirely production-focused operation, it troubles me to see so much land lost to the purple-flower mob.
Great swathes of productive ground have been taken out of production by landlords and cashed in to produce non-food crops, to the detriment of tenants and the nation’s ability to produce food.
There’s no such thing as marginal land; if you’re calling it that, you’re just growing the wrong crop.
Funding
There’s no guarantee there will be any funding in future, given this government seems to have the ability to pull it at any time regardless of what it’s previously said.
Look at its track record on the Basic Payment Scheme – many farms based their budgets on the previously announced sliding scale of payments, but they turned out to be not worth the paper they were written on.
If there is limited funding in future, surely it’s better to direct it towards capital grants rather than use it to cover prime agricultural land in non-food crops.
Investment in concrete, covered yards and slurry stores gives a far better return on money than that spent to benefit the environment by dabbling with cover crops, field corners and wild bird mixtures.
I don’t trust this government and suspect these options will become the sites of special scientific interest of the future by default.
It’s also vital that farmers scrutinise the small print before entering into any government initiatives relating to capital grants.
Some have had their fingers burned by entering into a scheme in good faith, going through a lengthy planning procedure and spending money up front only to have their applications pulled at the last minute.
The sad truth is, I’m embarrassed to live and farm in the UK at the moment.