David's Digest

I have no inside knowledge on the Bank of England's decision to cut the base interest rate by one and a half percent to 3%. But I can only assume the statistics and the forecasts on which they based the decision were horrific.

Before the event most commentators were predicting a cut of half a percent; a few said it might even be as high as one percent; only one academic said it should be one and a half percent, only to be ridiculed by the rest.

The implications of the huge (in banking terms) cut are that there must be a very torrid time ahead. The recession, in other words, is set to get deeper and wider and there will be lots of casualties along the way.

The NFU has rightly called for the cut to be passed on to farmers who borrow money. For the record I was being warned by a banker a couple of weeks ago that while base rates were virtually certain to come down, the rates charged by the banks would not alter much. In other words, if you have been paying one and a half percent, or two, or more above base rate when it comes down you will probably have to pay the same interest as before except that it will be at a much bigger premium above base rate than it was previously.

Banks, don't forget, have been nationalised or have had to refinance themselves with expensive money and are anxious to return to full solvency as soon as possible. As usual they will look to their customers to help them do it.

So, I wish the NFU well and very much hope that on the back of the relatively solid land assets owned by farmers they succeed in getting those rate cuts passed on. But I am not totally optimistic especially for the tenanted sector or for those who are particularly heavily borrowed.

Meanwhile, this morning in my post, I received a letter from my bank urging me to "make savings" by spending on some special offers of wine and so on that I did not want at cut prices. In another letter from the same bank in the same post I was reminded I could put five family names on my credit card. Needless to say both letters went straight in the bin. I do not intend to try to spend my way out of recession.

Is Justin King, boss of Sainsbury's supermarkets, deliberately trying to antagonise British farmers? Last Friday, at Cirencester College, he said, and I paraphrase, that Buying British in preference to imported food was "simplistic" and pandered to the "fashion" of worrying about food miles. He called any supermarket sourcing policy that made this a priority "fundamentally flawed". Buying from African farmers really helps them, he went on, and he claimed concerns about the distance such goods had to be transported were misplaced.

It sounds to me like Mr King is preparing to increase his imports from around the world because he has located produce that is cheaper than he would have to pay here. This attack feels like the beginning of a PR campaign to persuade Sainsbury's customers its OK to import even more. Meanwhile, he doubtless hopes, it will help him enhance his companys' bottom line and perhaps his personal bonus as well.

Am I being cynical? Maybe. But no more so than Mr King, I suggest. For to come out with such an anti UK farmer statement as he did last week at a time when it is fast becoming necessary to produce more of the nations food at home to ensure long term security, is as cynical as it gets. And if he thinks African's are really benefiting from the trade he gives them he should visit the production areas to see for himself. Yes, most of the bosses are doing OK. But their prosperity relies, all to often, on the continued exploitation of workers.

I thought better of you Mr King. 

I know how much you must have been worrying about the safety of the caviar you consume on a regular basis. Well, you can relax in the knowledge that Defra has found the resources, in the middle of the biggest financial collapse in living memory, to train sixteen of its wildlife inspectors to check the sturgeon's eggs imported into this country.

What a comfort it is to those of us from the gourmet classes to know this is happening. No class distinction here; our government, which prides itself on its concern for the welfare of blue collar workers, has not stinted in this protection of the aristocracy. Moreover it appears that it has found the resources for this groundbreaking scheme from savings made on inspections of imports of potentially diseased meat and other lethally contaminated goods.

Our Defra masters obviously have a clear sighted idea of the real priorities and are spending our money to benefit the most deserving sectors of society. Well done Hilary. Pass the port.

John Sergeant does a one-man stand-up entertainment when he's not prancing around the dancefloor with Kristina Rihanoff, aka sex on legs. When I heard him at an NFU dinner he told how, after he retired from being the BBC's political correspondent, he had been invited to participate in a celebrity reality TV programme.

It sounded great, he said, in his gentle understated way. "They would fly me out to South Africa and they promised lots of time on golden beaches and they'd teach me to water ski. I was about to accept with enthusiasm but then I thought to ask the title of the programme. It was Celebrity Sharkbait. So I decided to gracefully decline."

That's the kind of self deprecating humour that has endeared the man to viewers and led them to vote for him despite his dreadful dancing. That and the fact that voting him off might mean they saw less of the gyrating and scantily clad Kristina, I suspect. Although I, of course, could make no further comment on that.

But noting the media furore over his dancing and the even bigger one over his resignation from the show it occurred to me how useful it would be to get that kind of publicity for farming. Could we, for instance, get Henry Plumb on the programme next time? He's got loads of anecdotes to entertain the viewers whether he can dance or not. Choose a partner with similar attributes to Kristina and he'd be well away. And I'm sure he could keep viewers on tenterhooks over whether or not he would stay the course.

Anyway, I leave the thought with the PR department of the NFU. I'm sure they'll take it seriously. Just don't make the mistake of getting Peter Kendall onto "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here".I don't think he'd enjoy kangaroo's testicles.

According to Conservative Central Office Defra has admitted it paid out £1.1m over the last three years to removal contractors. Peter Ainsworth, Shadow Environment Secretary, said this amounted to £7,365 per week and suggested ministers should spend a little less time sorting out where to put the tables and chairs and a bit more on delivering a better environment.

When it comes to agriculture, which is also under Defra's remit, in case some ministers had forgotten, its actions are more reminiscent of moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Department may not yet have been fatally damaged by the iceberg of food shortages but it probably will. When it eventually capsizes and sinks we must just hope it doesn't drag our industry down with it.