Your last statement, saying you are going to vote Labour, in spite of their previous record in Wales, the obvious hated the moneyed up Labour party has for anything rural in the UK, had me in stitches. If you are lucky, one day you will look back at that statement, and recognize how utterly foolish you were.
Thank you for this video, I'm one of those urbanites who's in favour of more natural environments (non-farmed) for the benefit of wildlife, which I think should be considered a separate issue from climate change and emissions. (I think mass monoculture tree planting as a "carbon offset" is not a good thing either) You've opened my eyes to the issue from farmer's point of view which is very helpful. As you rightly say, food supply is really important, and the country needs food regardless of where it is grown. The government's policy should be to try and help famers grow as much food as possible in the UK so that there is security and low prices for consumers, as well as meeting ethical and emissions standards as much as possible. These two aims probably naturally conflict, but there is a balance to be struck through regulation, protectionism, and discussion with farmers. I think the best way forward would be to have a dedicated ministry for agriculture headed by a competent minister who is not just there as a stepping stone in their career, and proper consultation with famer's unions. I don't think we've had that under the tories, where almost all ministers have been in their posts to promote themselves rather than understand and lead, with only a few exceptions.
This was a very evenhanded breakdown of the manifestos. I really appreciate how you went to great lengths to highlight issues with the party you voted for while praising Reform. British politics is more multipolar than what we have over here in the US (an iron duopoly where 3rd parties are ruthlessly suppressed), and I think you’re better off for it.
Brilliant video and the best break down of the various parties agricultural policies or lack thereof that I've seen. And thanks for being so honest about where you stand. I don't know where I stand politically anymore, but have lost any faith in the major parties to change anything, and I don't know what to make of Farage really. But based on the fact that Reform followed by the Lib Dems were the only 2 parties that seemed to generally care about farming and farmers I'm surprised they didn't get the more of the farming vote. Be interested to hear if you've looked at Plaid Cymru's agricultural policy also?
The right to roam should not apply to car dependent people. We want livable neighbourhoods with active travel, this means community, safety, peace and quiet, minimal pollution and streets that children can play in. To achieve this we also need people eating nutritious, healthy food. You can't engage in active travel (walking and cycling) if you are eating processed food high in sugar, salt and fat. So it all comes together. I live in a big city of two million people with the most idyllic canal running through it. I did a six mile trip across town earlier today on the weekend, peak summer, and there were fifty people enjoying the canal towpath. It was not overcrowded. I detest car parks in beauty spots. People need to be part of the community where they live, not car dependent and destroying community with their filthy vehicles. As a cyclist I and happy to be on the roads with professional drivers with work to do, but everyone else needs to get out of their tin boxes and stop being 'flightless birds' unable to use their god given legs for mobility. The countryside is also not there for dormitory towns, for people to blast off at dawn in their German cars to a desk fifty or more miles away. You have to be part of the community and not a selfish destroyer of it. If you live in the country and have a job in the country, then you can have a car, if you are just a car dependent commuter with no regard for the planet or the community then you need to go back to the city where you belong and not be pricing country folk out of a home.
I feel your frustration. The parties take good, sound ideas and then half-ass it into law. And this is coming from an urbanite who's trying to educate himself on agriculture, soil science, etc.
Young British people! Want to save the planet? Great! Why don't we start by stop throwing your crisp packets, energy drink cans, and chocolate wrappers by the side of the road. Roadside litter is a real disgrace in such a beautiful environment as the English countryside.
I never understood how tough it was being a farmer until I watched Clarksons farm. I think that show has demosntrated to me and many city folk how hard your job truly is
Foods not really that expensive. Rent and house prices are expensive, personal transport is expensive. More mod con tut than genuinely needed is expensive, not repairing or maintain item is expensive. Cheep jet set holidays are expensive when you don't have enough free time to travel via rail or sea, which would be even more expensive with the current incentives. Why shouldn't food be valued? It's one thing the whole "oh the poor poors need cheapy cheep food" yet cheep food just drives down how much everyone will pay whether they could reasonably well afford more for it or not, most people probably could. If a smaller proportion of their income is spent on food then they will only consume more elsewhere. Or capitulate to higher other prices ie housing and transport, so those who profit more from them consume more elsewhere. To be honest, I'm on quite a low income and have to stick to Lidl and Aldi. Rather have more reasonable ways to earn money than spend less of a proportion of my income on food, I'd like to spend more money on better quality food really.
It's mostly about wealthy businesses increasing profits for shareholders. The subsidised dairy industry cares little about small farmers in the countries where they're undercut by cheap imports ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_ooG_PmXx68.html
Good break down. I think you touched on a point that is prevalent withint not just farming but as the country side becomes more and more urbanised is that of administrators having less and less idea of what they are administrating except that they they have been told by other administrators who have never know anything about what they administrate. Even if they do have an idea of what they administrate they are massivley out voted. (As an aside this is a mixute of mary's room thought experiment and robert m pirsig thoughts on quality). I think you also raised a good point about how lots of the current enviromental policies work for aristocracy (in the traditional sense and the new ultra weathy) who own land not to farm but for tax reasons and other reasons. The removal of small farms will only untilmatly result in hight food prices not lower as you will never get worker who work as cheaply as a farmer and you will never get a coroperation who will except theproffit margin of a farmer.
imo the topic of food security, is kind of an odd one, because it seems to be more about an ideal of self reliance than anything else. the main problem i see, is that modern agriculture requires a lot of industial machinery and technology. without being self reliant in those areas, you can't really call a country self sufficient a lot of agricultural machinery is very complicated, and creating domestic equivalents would be very expensive and take years. nevermind, the chemical industries, and chip factories, that all this equipment relies on. but is it even that bad, to have Britain be dependent on fertilizer from Rotterdam, or farm machinery from Germany? if foreign companies in nearby countries can do it cheaper and better, then that sounds fine to me. imo it would be better to focus on strength rather than spend billions chasing an ideal. driving down food prices would be good, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with self sufficiency. to be honest, i don't feel like that's even why the conservatives are talking about self sufficiency. the real motivations seems to a vision of an autarkic Britain that doesn't need European trade or migrations, even at the detriment of the country. they want to play the statesman/woman even it isn't in the interest of the country it just reminds me of that time when thatcher decided that the rifles for British troops should be made in Britain. under her rule, the British military stopped using the FAL (a good gun like by the troops), and adopted the SA80, an indigenous design, that's famous for being one of the worst rifles of all time. they did iron out the issues eventually, but only with the help of Heckler and Koch, a German company. the whole thing was a giant waste of money, all because a hand full of politicians wanted chase an idea of self reliance, which never made sense. in the end, Britain never did become self sufficient, and the people who paid for it, were the taxpayers, and the soldiers. to me, the whole self reliance thing, just sounds like a bunch of out of touch rich people, telling Brits to grow more turnips, because they like the aesthetic. especially because like you said, they don't even seem that intrested in actual farmers, or farming.
Sadly you dismiss Reform UK farming policies as 'right wing' when they clearly have conservative/liberal engagement. I hope you now have reverted your decision to vote Labour and will be for Reform UK in the future now Labour has shown their true colours. Love your content on the history!
this idea of good sense and sound values being endemic is ridiculous. Farmers will exploit animals if given the chance, you can argue your case but historical and present record says otherwise
24:07 As I research more about manifestos, and hear different groups of people voicing their opinion, Reform becomes the best option, and the best hope, for getting this country up to scratch.
It's time all those prisoners in our prisons dined on venison - we have just too many deer for the countryside to support. Or I guess leave the deer alone and construct more deer proof fences. But what then do we feed to our prisoners? Welsh lamb? There is no joined up thinking between food production and food consumption in this country - but there are an awful lot of people between the farmer and the fork making nice gains thank you very much! As a result, half of the food consumed here is full of garbage - nothing to do with the farmer - put in by the food industry before it is sold by our supermarkets to the unfortunate poor. Having said that I bought a lovely box of black cherries for £5 in a supermarket yesterday. Can't be bad! Technology will evolve and some things will be better as a result - I guess. Pity that the Green Party can't get it right - but unfortunately they never seem to. Maybe when they grow up they will. Farming, nature, the food industry, food and animal standards, use of the countryside, and even allotments all need to be seen as a connected whole integrated thing.
What bothers me about the food security debate is that we haven't been food independent since the 1700s, so it's just a ridiculous thing to claim. If 50% of your calories come from abroad, then it's going to need revolutionary changes. For example, it's often claimed we can do so by maintaining the same levels of animal agriculture by some sort of magic organic grass fed permaculture food forest. When really we're in denial. 80% of the world's agricultural land to produce 17% of the calories and 38% of protein, isn't good enough. If we wanted to innovate, it would be to produce more compelling plant based diets, in particular, the cost of plant protein. Meanwhile, we have some big names, such as Dyson/Vince, who are promoting bioenergy. Which, when you look into it, is the biggest greenwashing scam ever. Just look at the ethanol industry in the US. Tim Lenton is suggesting we may be on the verge of vegan diets reaching a tipping point, where the case becomes so strong that it can no longer be ignored by the bulk of the population. In which case, it would be well worth adapting to that inevitable future to be in a position to benefit from it.
Only about a third of agricultural land is good enough to grow plants for human consumption, the rest is grass and we can't eat grass until it becomes sheep and cows. Using good land to grow animal food is daft, but how much does it happen when it is quite inefficient?
That's what we're doing, though. We're growing food on good land, to feed to animals to supply a market - without paying for the pollution it produces. Everyone know this by now. Exclusively grass fed stuff is such low productivity that it's worth just rewilding and changing to ecotourism tbh. With less flying, there'll be a massive demand for it etc.
>"What bothers me about the food security debate is that we haven't been food independent since the 1700s, so it's just a ridiculous thing to claim. If 50% of your calories come from abroad, then it's going to need revolutionary changes." Current food security is hovering around 60%. A combination of agricultural efficiency, diet, land use and food waste changes at policy level could certainly increase this number. The other number not included today in 2024 is the fact that in 2024 officially UK population is 68m (probably unofficially a few million more?). Now if Migration had been limited since the 90s population would already be down to 62m. Taking that trend further the population could come down in another 30 years if UK had not chosen Mass Migration to about 50m. With such combination of sustainability policy as you advocate and depopulation over time, UK could boost food security, reduce pollution and hit closer to energy / carbon targets. The real fly in the ointment is the growth in population while attempting the above macro policy changes AS WELL. As for VEGAN it's not a health diet. The vegan substitute meats have lots of unhealthy material in them and it's too complex for the majority of people to gain all the nutrients they need as well. Lab meat? It's probably going to be another case of finding out unwanted side-effects down the road just like many other new foods put into human diets we've already experienced in the past. Finally, as said, depending on which part of the UK you're in, grass pasture IS the best crop to grow to convert into animal food for consumption. So I can't see that changing and the fact that animal products are indeed in correct portion healthy inputs into a human balanced diet (contrary to the current policy nostrums dictating to the masses who are not actually eating healthy diets often eg obsesity rates and junk food use/sales). Though I agree much of the uplands should be afforested... thus reducing total pasture available. [...to counter-balance the negatives from the massive urban concrete heat islands effects that is now a global problem additional to deforestation loss ie a multiplier in terms of reducing the positive feedback system of biotic and increasing the negative feedback of abiotic as well !! How stupid can humanity get in addition to the pollutants of gas changes for radiation absorption / albedo changes.]
I’m 19 and trying to get into farming, I’m going to be voting reform and I’ve persuaded a few other farmers to do the same. It’s likely labour will get in but I think the next few years will be very bleak for farmers when they do.
Isn't it odd how those folks who claim to be most concerned about the poor and downtrodden love to enact policies which have the effect of makng them even more poor and downtrodden? I guess it increases their constituency...
Wait, Tories support automation now? As a green voter who keeps being told that If I take votes away from Labour I'll let the Tories back in - if they focus on automation, then I can't say I really care if Labour miss out on my seat.
So for the 10% tree cover, isn't that just good animal welfare? Cows, sheep, pigs all need shade in summer and wind breaks in winter. Seems you're just writing off all that as unproductive when it can have purpose. Hell it says tree cover, plant some apples and pears and even if you don't sell them just feed them to the animals.
Silvopasture works, you don't loose much in terms of grass area and shade improves water retention etc and again as said provides relief for animals in Summer.
Livestock can also eat trees and shrubs. In fact farmers used to use willow and hazle as a type of hay for the winter. A few dotted about in a field or even taken out the hedgerow is going to be more beneficial than not. Hate it when farmers see trees and hedges as a nuisance.
Another excellent video. I don't know if it's fair to say Reform are stealing ideas. On the whole their policies are sensible and have common appeal so it may be better to put the left v right crap aside and go for the best policies AND someone who may actually deliver it. Labour seem to want to make us poorer and less secure.
What's been a very interesting learning experience for me over the last week or so is that reflecting on the manifestos of the parties available. Every member of a special interest group looks at what's available and says that Reform UK has the best available manifesto and then says something like, "But I can't vote for it for some.other reason". Parents, for example, would likely have another child if there wasn't a cap on child benefit to 2 children. This video describing the quality and positivity of their farming plan. First-time employees do not have to pay income tax until £20k. Even some NHS staff have agrees that the route to reducing waiting lists and improving the standard the service is to reduce demand, and there is no doubt net zero migration would do that (to what degree is disputed, but it would certainly be effective). The bizarre thing to me is that it seems like are all turkeys and the Reform Contract (manifesto) is the option against Christmas. But no one will vote for it. No one public anyway.
I didn't quite understand what was wrong with Reform. You appear to agree with their agricultural policies the most out of any party in the video, yet simply dismiss them because they are "far-right" and "populist". You'll vote Labour, whose track record in Wales, as you point out is atrocious for farmers and whose manifesto hardly speaks to farmers at all. Why shouldn't farmers vote for Reform? What's wrong with Reform's ideas? Why would Labour be the best thing for the country?
@@Jablicek What ideas are unreasonable? How do you define Reform as fascist? What do they have in common with Mussolini's Italy? They are hardly a violent revolutionary movement, which all fascist movements are. So how are they fascist?
I think ideas of left and right should be left back in revolutionary France where they belong. Shoe-horning issues into to a framing as a left or right issue is so horribly outdated. You basically need to look at the actual aims and beliefs behind the policy. Saying “isn’t it odd that right wingers are adopting policies from the 40s” sort of misses the point. In the example of the Reform party, the idea of supporting British farmer and food security is an anti-globalist policy. If you despise the idea that cheap goods from China and India undercutting local industry and keeping the west in a house-of -cards middleman service economy teetering on collapse, supporting local agriculture is logical. Which is in line with their principles and that of Brexit - the idea that the world being defined by vague interconnected economic zones as opposed to nations and countries has done a lot of damage to the world. And I agree with that sentiment. As much as I am not a fan of Farage for various reasons. The globalised economy has concentrated wealth in one hemisphere and concentrated the labour required for that wealth in the other at severe cost to the peoples in both hemispheres although it’s less noticeable as a westerner because we get the wealth part but it is a golden cage certainly. I completely disagree that Labour, Conservative or LibDem will ever improve things. I don’t know who to vote for but it won’t be the party that’s been in power for 14 years making things worse and it won’t be Tony Blair mkII in Kier Starmer. People forget that the reason the awful Tories have been quite happily destroying the country while confidently being re-elected with no political skill, talent or policies that serve anyone’s interests is because the country was so shell-shocked by the disaster of the previous labour government - which was two massive and pointless wars in the Middle East, an economic meltdown (partly caused by 1980s Tory policy but never corrected) partly caused by financial mismanagement by the Labour Party treating quantitative easing and the tax revenue as an unlimited credit card to doom future generations with. People have very short memories and forget at the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were like a nuclear bomb to this country economically, socially, culturally and geopolitically. While the conservatives were a slow and devastating poison. I don’t know who to vote for at the next election but I won’t be Labour or the Tories whatever happens. There is no one in the House of Commons that represents the normal common people of this country. They line their pockets first, they look after their special interests second, and then they occasionally throw the people a bone in an election year..
Why should anyone bother to hear you speak? You’d be a peasant right if not for the advancements from the French Revolution and the movements prior ur also likely against. Go back to serving a Lord on land you don’t own /s
I think maybe the point was that if a voter sees a party which is leftist in one policy area but rightist in another, then they have to decide where they're personally willing to compromise, when casting their vote - if the Conservatives now represent leftist agricultural policy, but remain rightist on education, immigration, etc then where is the left-leaning rural voter to go? That said, surely voting has always been a case of compromise, so it'd be nothing new. Anyway, I'm pretty sick of mud-slinging and uncooperative politics and if moving beyond ideas of left and right would allow parties to see themselves more like committee members than enemy combatants, then it can't happen soon enough.
