Just read Matthew Naylor's column which will appear in FW next week. Sure it's going to polarise opinion! He is hugely critical of the current CAP system.

At one point he says: "The RPA might as well fly over the UK in Chinook helicopters shovelling £50 notes out the back for all the good they doing; it would be a far less wasteful and time-consuming method of distributing money on a per acre basis."

Its quite a good analagy, except the chinook seems to hover for long periods over the earlsof leicesters/westminster/northumberlands estates, dumping out millions, then zooming at top speed over me.

People think farmers are the only ones to get subs but there are lots of things that do from cars and babys to lazy sods that do nothing

housing benefit, costing £20 billion a yr is a subsidy to landlords.

CAP is a pittance by comparison

Here's the full column:

How do you feel when you see a representative from the banking industry on the television defending their multi-million pound bonuses?

I'm guessing your emotions will be similar to mine, halfway between muttering "Oh come off it, mate" and wanting to throw a mug of hot tea at the screen.

So have a think about this one. The farming industry argues that the CAP exists to keep food prices low. But food prices are rising. How must taxpayers feel to see large sums of money rolling into farmers' pockets while their own living standards are falling?

I find it impossible to defend the CAP any more. It's not that I'm a total free trade nut; I can see the merit of a European agricultural strategy. Price volatility does a lot of damage to an industry's development so I can even see the logic in an intervention mechanism to stabilise food prices.

The CAP was at its most effective when it worked that way. It was the pantry of Europe and we had physical evidence of where our money was going. We had mountains of butter and lakes of wine. No wonder cheese and wine parties were so popular in the 1970s.

How on earth did we move from the profitable farming and luxurious abundance of "old school" CAP to a scheme with all of the cost and none of the value? The system we have in place now does nothing to guarantee food production. It does nothing to stabilise food prices and, as it stands, it does precious little for biodiversity, carbon reduction or supporting rural communities either. It's just a worn-out sausage machine churning out bureaucracy and giving dole to landowners.

The blanket nature of flat-rate area payments is one of the main drivers of agricultural cost inflation. The RPA might as well fly over the UK in Chinook helicopters shovelling £50 notes out the back - it would be a far less wasteful and time-consuming method of distributing money on a per acre basis.

Another reform of the policy is looming and, with member states' budgets under pressure, one would assume that it's time for new and radical thinking. No chance. "EU policy making is a giant, slow-moving vessel" they say. "It takes us a long while to change course." Although I applaud the accuracy of the comparison with the Titanic, personally I favour the analogy of a giant toilet cistern that takes a long while to fill up between flushes. Brussels is a city where dreams are compromised. The predicted change this time, the capping of payments to large farms, is gloriously incoherent. This random act of populist socialism makes a mockery of their commitment to paying on an area basis. I question the fairness of it, but I don't follow the argument that capping punishes businesses for being efficient. Not all large-scale farms are efficient. Efficiency is worthless if it isn't sustainable and a lot of large arable farms are oil-dependent monsters - European policy should be encouraging the move away from mono-cultural enterprises that effectively do little more than convert fossil fuel into grain.

It's time for the EU to start spending our money wisely and with a clearer sense of purpose. The CAP needs to support a much bolder, more sustainable vision for the future and should only reward those farmers that make it a reality.

Tim.Relf:

He is hugely critical of the current CAP system.

He is not alone in this, many are. The trouble is British farmers have capitalised the gaovernment largesse money over the last 60 years into land values and stock values, like some sort of junkie.

As a nation we are in the weakest competitive position to meet changes in CAP due to out structure of large farms, land ownership and common law. The indefensibility of CAP is the way in which large farms and big business get so much. The payment should be capped to a maximum of £20,000 per farm.

motley, I proposed something similar on another thread a while back - limiting the amount paid to the number of full-time employees on the holding. Non-producers got nothing. As with your post, people chose to ignore it. The CAP is essential to keep the rural population of Europe where they are, otherwise they will move into the cities (as has been happening in -China for the last few decades, and to a lesser exent throughout mainland Europe) and they cannot be fed.

British farming has no comparison with the peasant scale agriculture carried out in most of Europe. In fact, as I have been saying since before the stupid decision to join the then Common Market, Britain is not and never will be, part of Europe - especially its agricultural sector. How many of the posters on this thread can honestly say that they have lived and worked with a European peasant farmer and understand his problems and desires? These people outnumber UK farmers many times over, so bleating about what is good for UK agriculture and being willing to remain in Europe is pointless. Join Dick, and his yet to be formed political party - get out. It will save Britain a lot of money.

theres plenty of peasant agriculture in scotland. even big farms are now peasants, as their income is so low, and  workload ever increasing,

The reformed SFP should be if possible a small area payment used to enforce basic environmental standards and a large discretionary payment restricted to active farming and spent on land improvements, buildings and new entrants.

old mcdonald:

How many of the posters on this thread can honestly say that they have lived and worked with a European peasant farmer

We always hear about peasant farmers but what is one how would they live and make a living?

henarar:

We always hear about peasant farmers but what is one how would they live and make a living?

I reckon Old Mc could cut and paste a posting of his from this forum about three weeks ago, about how he currently farms in Portugal. I could also give him a plug for his excellent book on how not to make millions. but be a happy peasant farmer.

Tim.Relf:

The system we have in place now does nothing to guarantee food production. It does nothing to stabilise food prices and, as it stands, it does precious little for biodiversity, carbon reduction or supporting rural communities either. It's just a worn-out sausage machine churning out bureaucracy and giving dole to landowners

I have long thought it odd that Politicians are essentially in the business of taking money off us deducting all they want for themselves and their pet ideas, and then giving us some back. Of that which they give us back, they give the most to their chums and folks they think vote for them, and divide the remainder to the rest of us just so they can say we all get something. In other words they are no better than Dick Turpin but probably more capricious.

They say they believe in the free market and then do all they can to eliminate every aspect of its operation. Some of them do not even pay lip service to the free market in their attempts to control every aspect of life and to further their own ideas of what Utopia, Nirvana, Zion or Paradise should be.

My solution is revolutionary. Get out of Europe. Reduce the number of MPs to 600 or which 200 would be 'randomly selected' as per the jury selection system.

Everyone thus selected would HAVE to give up their career and attend. They would be paid a vast sum for the five year period (even if it was cut short). They would be barred from every public office for the rest of their lives but could run businesses or retire if so minded.

As for the other 400 seats. They would be contested as now.

The effect would be that the winning political party would never have an outright majority but would have to argue its case in front of both the Opposition and the Selected Voters. That way, we are more likely to have policy decided by rational debate.

henarar, PM me. I sent you one a while back that answers the question. I think you must have missed it. Edit: Better still, email through FWi.

And thanks for the plug Peter. I am hoping to recover my electricity costs for the time I spent on it. Lord Thurso, who generally introduces himself to you as John, made a partially similar suggestion when the House of Lords was being reformed. Limited time permitted as a Member, and then never again. I think his suggestion was two 6-year terms. He told me this in conversation so I have no idea whether his proposal is available for general reading.