• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Preparing for a possible next major World War

GooseOnTheLoose said:
Literally every single zero hour worker in this country. Every Uber, Just Eat and Deliveroo driver. Every freelance creative, every teaching assistant picking up bar shifts on the weekend, every nurse working bank shifts just to cover their soaring energy bills....

Welcome to the realities of modern British capitalism.

I find it fascinating how we, as a society, readily romanticise agriculture while applying brutal, free market Darwinism to absolutely everyone else. If a high street shop, a local pub, or a regional theme park (to keep things somewhat on brand) fails to turn a profit, the prevailing economic wisdom is that they failed to adapt to the market. They're told to diversify, restructure, or close their doors.

When a minimum wage hospitality worker can't afford their rent, they are told by columnists in The Telegraph or talking heads on GB News to cancel their Netflix subscription, stop buying coffee, "upskill" and start a "side hustle."

Yet, when a land owning agricultural business struggles to turn a profit on its primary yield, the suggestion that they might need to leverage their massive, tangible, equity rich assets (perhaps by opening a farm shop, leasing land for solar / wind generation, or throwing up a few yurts for glamping) is somehow framed as a unique and tragic insult.

Farming is a business. A vital one, absolutely, and one which is already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer precisely because of its strategic national importance, but it's still a commercial enterprise. If the primary product of your business is no longer covering its operational costs, diversifying your revenue streams isn't some cruel, unusual punishment inflicted by a tyrannical state.

If only the precarious gig economy workers of this country had a few hundred acres of rolling countryside to "diversify" with when their primary income goes down the pan.
Click to expand...
The world does not owe me or any other farmer a living. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m better off planning early retirement than banging my head against the wall, and I’m advising my kids not to consider the industry.

That’s not just me- it’s the same across the whole of the industry. The upshot of the “If you can’t stand the heat…” attitude is that we will produce very little food in the UK; that’s absolutely fine (imports are cheaper) until it isn’t.

Food production is no longer subsidised- as I’ve pointed out that budget has been moved from food to environment. I don’t think it’s ever been ‘heavily’ subsidised either. At 2.4bn, that’s less than a theme park visit per year for each of us. Compare that to the budget for Health which is somewhere near 200bn; also vital but I think £34 each for food security isn’t bad value for money.

The interesting thing will be what happens to that land in the future. The largest global asset management companies have expressed interest in increasing their UK land holdings but I doubt they will be interested in using it for farming unless and until they can make some real returns out of it in future.
 
BarryZola said:
All good stuff. But what if too many of the farmers sell off their land and move to Greece or Spain? Less food security and we're in a worse position than before. It's fine if we think that our government will put together a plan to take over these lands or start new farms elsewhere. But would they?
Click to expand...
No chance of our Govt nationalising land. Re the housing crisis Govt should be setting to and building high quality, low cost social housing on a massive scale but do they? Not a chance; they want to set the rules not be held to them. Same with farming.
 
As long as we don't get kersploomed while I'm at work, I don't mind. I just don't want the last thing I hear to be [network branded football sting].
 
BarryZola said:
All good stuff. But what if too many of the farmers sell off their land and move to Greece or Spain? Less food security and we're in a worse position than before. It's fine if we think that our government will put together a plan to take over these lands or start new farms elsewhere. But would they?
Click to expand...
The reality is, they aren't going to be selling it to other small family farmers. They're going to be selling it to the exact massive global asset management companies that @Slackjawedyokel mentions.

We're already seeing it happen. Corporate behemoths and private equity firms are buying up the British countryside, not to ensure domestic food security, but for corporate land-banking, lucrative tax arrangements, and "greenwashing" carbon offset schemes. They plant a few thousand trees on prime agricultural land, claim they are Net Zero to appease their shareholders, and the country's capacity to feed itself drops another percentage point. This was literally Jeremy Clarkson's idea, before he saw that he could make even more money with a TV show.

If a basic human necessity, like food security, healthcare, or water, can't be sustainably and profitably managed by the free market, then the free market has fundamentally failed in that sector.

It's entirely understandable why a farmer would advise their children to leave the industry. We've created a hyper capitalist food supply chain where a cartel of mega supermarkets holds a near total monopsony on purchasing. They ruthlessly squeeze the actual producers, driving farm gate prices below the cost of production, purely to maintain their own profit margins and artificially suppress inflation for the consumer. The farmers take all the financial risk, weather the literal storms and the supermarkets take the profit.

From my socialist perspective, the solution here isn't just throwing more unconditional, no strings attached taxpayer subsidies at private landowners to maintain the status quo. If the current model of private agricultural enterprise is fundamentally broken, then the state needs to intervene for the public good.

If farms are going under, we shouldn't be letting international investment funds buy up the shires to use as a tax dodge. The state, or community owned agricultural cooperatives, should have a statutory first right of refusal to purchase that land at its agricultural value. We could transition to a model where tenant farmers are employed by, or lease from, the state or cooperative trusts, with guaranteed, fair purchasing prices for their yields to feed directly into localised supply chains, schools and hospitals.

Food security is national security. If we're happy to spend tens of billions on defence to protect our borders, we probably ought to ensure there's actually an infrastructure inside those borders capable of feeding the people we are supposedly protecting. Leaving it to the whims of the free market, the supermarkets and BlackRock is a recipe for absolute disaster.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
The reality is, they aren't going to be selling it to other small family farmers. They're going to be selling it to the exact massive global asset management companies that @Slackjawedyokel mentions.

We're already seeing it happen. Corporate behemoths and private equity firms are buying up the British countryside, not to ensure domestic food security, but for corporate land-banking, lucrative tax arrangements, and "greenwashing" carbon offset schemes. They plant a few thousand trees on prime agricultural land, claim they are Net Zero to appease their shareholders, and the country's capacity to feed itself drops another percentage point. This was literally Jeremy Clarkson's idea, before he saw that he could make even more money with a TV show.

If a basic human necessity, like food security, healthcare, or water, can't be sustainably and profitably managed by the free market, then the free market has fundamentally failed in that sector.

It's entirely understandable why a farmer would advise their children to leave the industry. We've created a hyper capitalist food supply chain where a cartel of mega supermarkets holds a near total monopsony on purchasing. They ruthlessly squeeze the actual producers, driving farm gate prices below the cost of production, purely to maintain their own profit margins and artificially suppress inflation for the consumer. The farmers take all the financial risk, weather the literal storms and the supermarkets take the profit.

From my socialist perspective, the solution here isn't just throwing more unconditional, no strings attached taxpayer subsidies at private landowners to maintain the status quo. If the current model of private agricultural enterprise is fundamentally broken, then the state needs to intervene for the public good.

If farms are going under, we shouldn't be letting international investment funds buy up the shires to use as a tax dodge. The state, or community owned agricultural cooperatives, should have a statutory first right of refusal to purchase that land at its agricultural value. We could transition to a model where tenant farmers are employed by, or lease from, the state or cooperative trusts, with guaranteed, fair purchasing prices for their yields to feed directly into localised supply chains, schools and hospitals.

Food security is national security. If we're happy to spend tens of billions on defence to protect our borders, we probably ought to ensure there's actually an infrastructure inside those borders capable of feeding the people we are supposedly protecting. Leaving it to the whims of the free market, the supermarkets and BlackRock is a recipe for absolute disaster.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's a disgrace that our governments of different colours have not been paying attention. But, do they ever? Our supermarkets and shops are currently being looted by individuals whenever thet feel like it and the government can't be bothered to quickly put anything in motion to put a stop to it. We're being led by donkeys (and that's being kind).
 
I was always thinking that they'd pulverize the likes of Birmingham or Manchester as a warning to London to submit (let's be honest, it'll probably be Birmingham).
 
BarryZola said:
I was always thinking that they'd pulverize the likes of Birmingham or Manchester as a warning to London to submit (let's be honest, it'll probably be Birmingham).
Click to expand...
[insert Sisko "I can live with it" meme here]
ETA: With the world on the brink of doom, the main issue management are focusing on right now at [TV company] is "one of our new branded sofa cushions is missing". Seriously, we have two studios on air right now, and the cushion is more important to them!
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
The reality is, they aren't going to be selling it to other small family farmers. They're going to be selling it to the exact massive global asset management companies that @Slackjawedyokel mentions.

We're already seeing it happen. Corporate behemoths and private equity firms are buying up the British countryside, not to ensure domestic food security, but for corporate land-banking, lucrative tax arrangements, and "greenwashing" carbon offset schemes. They plant a few thousand trees on prime agricultural land, claim they are Net Zero to appease their shareholders, and the country's capacity to feed itself drops another percentage point. This was literally Jeremy Clarkson's idea, before he saw that he could make even more money with a TV show.

If a basic human necessity, like food security, healthcare, or water, can't be sustainably and profitably managed by the free market, then the free market has fundamentally failed in that sector.

It's entirely understandable why a farmer would advise their children to leave the industry. We've created a hyper capitalist food supply chain where a cartel of mega supermarkets holds a near total monopsony on purchasing. They ruthlessly squeeze the actual producers, driving farm gate prices below the cost of production, purely to maintain their own profit margins and artificially suppress inflation for the consumer. The farmers take all the financial risk, weather the literal storms and the supermarkets take the profit.

From my socialist perspective, the solution here isn't just throwing more unconditional, no strings attached taxpayer subsidies at private landowners to maintain the status quo. If the current model of private agricultural enterprise is fundamentally broken, then the state needs to intervene for the public good.

If farms are going under, we shouldn't be letting international investment funds buy up the shires to use as a tax dodge. The state, or community owned agricultural cooperatives, should have a statutory first right of refusal to purchase that land at its agricultural value. We could transition to a model where tenant farmers are employed by, or lease from, the state or cooperative trusts, with guaranteed, fair purchasing prices for their yields to feed directly into localised supply chains, schools and hospitals.

Food security is national security. If we're happy to spend tens of billions on defence to protect our borders, we probably ought to ensure there's actually an infrastructure inside those borders capable of feeding the people we are supposedly protecting. Leaving it to the whims of the free market, the supermarkets and BlackRock is a recipe for absolute disaster.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’ve written there. The trouble is I can only ever see it coming about harder left/green political situation. That would bring with it a whole lot more domestic environmental protection regulation, which as any farmer will tell you makes it more difficult/less economically feasible to stay in business.

In the current situation, a lot of farms only stay afloat because the business owner isn’t paying themself a realistic wage. Under a government/community owned model, any workers would presumably be paid at least a living wage. You then run into exactly the same problems that farming currently faces. Do you force local supply chains (schools, hospitals etc) to buy the local produce or are they allowed to buy cheaper imported food ?

As a small, landowning business owner (and sole worker), I think that the current system isn’t that broken and fixing it would not be THAT difficult. We have legal standards for food production in the UK so why do we accept imports produced to lower standards? Addressing that alone would sort out our food security issue.
 
Last edited:
Slackjawedyokel said:
We have legal standards for food production in the UK so why do we accept imports produced to lower standards?
Click to expand...
I can address this, after brexit we have to sign other deals, we are in a somewhat weak negotiating position, and other countries will want to sell their food here, we have to cave to actually have any chance of the rest of the economy growing.
 
JAperson said:
I can address this, after brexit we have to sign other deals, we are in a somewhat weak negotiating position, and other countries will want to sell their food here, we have to cave to actually have any chance of the rest of the economy growing.
Click to expand...
Sure- I’m not a fan of Brexit and didn’t vote for it, but as the protests in the rest of Europe show, a lot of European farmers are in the same boat re cheap imports.
 
Slackjawedyokel said:
Sure- I’m not a fan of Brexit and didn’t vote for it, but as the protests in the rest of Europe show, a lot of European farmers are in the same boat re cheap imports.
Click to expand...
They are although a much better position than our farming industry and of course it is important than the masses come first, cheap food is mostly good for the economy and help people in poverty most. There is no easy fix to this without raising food prices, and thats the real challenge. We cannot force public sector organisations like schools and hospitals to buy local, because they don't have the budgets, and people don't want higher taxes. We cannot match EU style subsidies for the same reason. I actually don't envy the government in this regard. any time they touch any tax or try and cut something everybody explodes like its the end of the world. We also cannot sacrifse the climate and environment for the sake of food security either (there will be no need for it if everybody dies out). The Government has already got to find a huge increase in defence spending, plus lots of other departments calling out for huge investments, I honestly don't know where they are going to get the money to do much that's really going to actually make a long term difference.
 
Perhaps not overly significant but spotted this in the news yesterday

www.bbc.co.uk

US plans to automatically register young men for military draft

The proposed new rule would end decades of mandatory self-registration for Selective Service in the US.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

USA to introduce automatic draft for 18-25 year olds.

I believe other countries have introduced similar schemes for young adults eg. Germany, Poland - do we think the UK will follow suit or have to follow suit at some point especially if agent Orange decides to pull out of NATO?
 
To have any kind of near battle-ready force it would cost us money. National Service as an example. Our leaders won't commit money to something like that until we're in imminent danger, as it won't win them votes in the short term. Being signed up for a draft is immaterial really. If we suddenly become at war with another country, people aged 18-30 are getting called up whether they are signed up or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top