Jane King's blog

Farmers Weekly's editor gives you an insight into how FW group works...
NFU bias - what do you think?

A well known farmer told a colleague of mine the other day he thought FW was completely biased in favour of the NFU.   He argued that this was dangerous to FW's independence, particularly as he believed the current NFU leadership was not challenging Government anywhere near enough.

So what do you think?   Our position in the last couple of years has been to support the NFU as best we can because we genuinely believe the organisation and its people work desperately hard to do the right thing for farming.   Where necessary, FW will speak up and criticise but when it is necessary and certainly not all the time.

When I took over as editor in 2005, one constant complaint was that FW had been too whingeing, too negative and offered no hope for the future.  We consulted with over 4,500 people in farming about how we should adapt to changes in the industry and new information needs.  It became clear that farmers overwhelmingly wanted us to update our tone and be more solutions driven and positive.  

I interpreted that approach as also trying to work more constructively with the key organisations like a critical friend.  A critical friend doesn't just say what you want to hear, it will also be brutally frank when it needs to be.  And that's how we see our relationship with the NFU.    We are as independent as we've always been.

In the last couple of years, the NFU too has altered its stance.   It's had to find a new way of communicating and working with Government, the EU and the media if it's to put British agriculture back on the map.    The future is about constructive negotiation and keeping channels of communication open. Politicians rarely understand farmers and they need to wake up to the harsh reality that production farming really matters.     

In our opinion, the current NFU leadership has made significant progress in breaking down barriers between the industry and the policy makers. There's an awful lot more to do before we have a government that encourages and enables but we're getting there through careful diplomacy and consultation.   Being at war with each other and with Government will get us nowhere.  

So, over to you.  Could we be tougher on the key organisations?              

       

    

Published Monday, March 31, 2008 1:43 PM by Jane King

Comments

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Monday, March 31, 2008 5:50 PM

I can understand your position and it is both positive and logical. There is however, a point you, and most politicians seem to ignore or never consider, and it is this:

Our system of government is based on the notion that conflicting ideas will be resolved through formalised debating procedures. Unfortunately in recent years politicians have NOT followed this model. They have instead tried to bypass those processes, by attempting to draw 'so called' interested parties into the data gathering, analysis, diagnosis, solution and implementation.

Organisations such as the NFU should, under our model be conducting all those exercises WITHIN their own organisations before talking to the politicians.

The consequences for the NFU are that many members 'feel' cheated that their representative has not properly determined what is best for its members before it has then sat down with the politicians to NEGOTIATE how much of what it wants it can get.

This changed method of resolving conflicting interest benefits Politicians, in that they are able to influence the processes which are thus used within NFU to determine its position. They are thus able to portray the poliical decision as having been agreed by, as appropriate; our partners, interested parties or Stakeholders.

The NFU, and other organisations that represent subscription members to government should make sure that the the interests ONLY of their members is pursued right up to the point of negotiation. They should not let themselves be seduced into sharing decision making in the interests of what politicians may call. the interests of the nation.

It is up to the Politicians to have the interests of the nation at heart and they, and they alone should negotiate with other parties to resolve conflicting interests.

Peter Wells

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Monday, March 31, 2008 8:37 PM

Yes, you dont push the NFU anything like enough. Considering that they are the large, umberella group for farming, I cont see that they achieve anything for us really.

Its not the government who need convincing - its the customers.

TeslaCoils

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Monday, March 31, 2008 11:23 PM

 Biased?? Don’t be daft Jane, the FW has been the voice of sanity through the years and it is always a worry when the NFU decide to hold meetings closed to the press (such as the AGM of vice-presidential hustings). You have got us all guessing who the “well-known farmer” is, maybe from Cambridgeshire or South Devon?

  I thought your editorial put it well when you said the NFU is only as strong as its members who must participate to ensure they get the union they want for the years ahead. In asking people to comment on the NFU at 100 you did include a couple of critics including one old fellow who said when people get to a certain age they start mutter to themselves, dribble a bit and no-one listens anymore – never mind we still love him anyway!

Tom Rigby

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:33 PM

Jane

To some extent I can sympathise with your 'well-known' farmer critic - although I think the comment is overly harsh.

In my opinion FW could be harsher on the major organisations (they're big enough and ugly enough to put up with a little constructive criticism) but I can also appreciate the difficulty FW has in reporting these issues.

It often seems that on a number of the most important issues there is little differentiation between the position of the NFU and the position of their friends in agribusiness, or the position of their opposite numbers in government.

Faced with a unified pan-industry position, and in the absence of organised dissent, it must be difficult for FW to avoid being criticised for a pro-NFU stance.

One possible way for FW to redress the balance might be to allow a greater scope of opinion to be expressed within the magazine.

The 'Talking Point' column used to be an opportunity for dissenting opinion to be expressed but the new slimmed-down version is a shadow of its former self. Coupled to that, a number of the regular contributors seem to be from the same stable and express similar opinions.

Might it be possible to extend the range of expressed opinion by adding new regular contributors to provide dissenting and  enquiring opinions?

If nothing else it should lead to healthy and informative debate on these important issues - as occasionally witnessed on the website!

branston pickle

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:17 AM

I am sure FW is not NFU biased and NFU's methods are exactly as Peter Wells points out.

This is then supported as Branston Pickle says by unified pan industry stance.

I must admit to being astonushed that 8,500 people vote on your NFU poll when normaly a thousand is the vote number. So it must be by voter turnout the most important thing FW do.

tiza

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:47 AM

Can I respond to Branston Pickle's comment about the Talking Point slot in Farmers Weekly as that is my area of responsibility?

We are very open to having a greater scope of opinion expressed within the magazine and the Talking Point slot is an obvious candidate.

It has slimmed down in recent years but at 450 words we believe it is still possible to write something thought provoking and controversial.

We don't actually have any "regular contributors" for that bit - we try and go with a different person each week and a mix of industry figures and ordinary producers.

I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for people to provide the "dissenting and  enquiring opinions" you enjoy. Could I persuade you to write one yourself? Go on.... :)

The place where we do have regular contributors is on the columns page. Obviously there is David Richardson who research tells us is loved by many and loathed by others - but they all read him! We then have a rota of other contributors such as Matthew Naylor, Hugh Broom, Adam Bedford and Stephen Carr. Is it these people who you feel have similar views?

The problem in this area is finding people who can write lively, interesting columns on a regular basis is quite trickly. There are lots of people with one good column in them (a pet subject/gripe/view) but finding people who have the time and the skill to write columns on a regular basis is much trickier. But again if you have some ideas let me know!

Thanks for the feedback - I will redouble my efforts to find some 'new blood'.

Isabel

Isabel Davies

# re: NFU bias - what do you think?@ Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:21 PM

Isabel,

Shouldn't that be 'David Richardson whom...' not 'who'?  

Andrew Watts