We've spent the past few weeks at Farmers Weekly investigating the pressure groups lobbying to influence British agriculture.

After lots of consideration (and heated debate) we've come up with a top 20 organisations that we believe are the most powerful when it comes to telling farmers how they should farm.

We're publishing this top 20 across five pages in Farmers Weekly on Friday (25 November), ranking each organisation according to its resources, campaigning/lobbying activity and its attitude towards farming (some are more anti than others).

These are our views, of course, but we reckon readers will have equally valid views, so we're in the process of setting up an online version that allows FWi users to rank each organisation.

It will be interesting to see who gets the most votes - and how much your views differ from ours.

Johann Tasker:

We've spent the past few weeks at Farmers Weekly investigating the pressure groups lobbying to influence British agriculture.

 

We wouldnt be such easy targets if our farmer organisations weren't such pussies. 

 Must be contagious, ours are too.

TeslaCoils:

We wouldnt be such easy targets if our farmer organisations weren't such pussies. 

And as soon as someone shows some balls (eg Farmers for Action, or the fuel protests a few years ago) the likes of the NFU almost wet themselves in their eagerness to condemn and distance themselves from any effective action!

bovril:

And as soon as someone shows some balls (eg Farmers for Action, or the fuel protests a few years ago) the likes of the NFU almost wet themselves in their eagerness to condemn and distance themselves from any effective action!

i think jelousy comes to mind.

Has anybody seen any audited accounts for Farmers For Action?

Malcolm:

Has anybody seen any audited accounts for Farmers For Action?

Do they need accounts ? I've never heard of anyone paying a membership fee. They do a lot of good even though they come across as cranks sometimes. I'm sure the NFU secretly find it quite useful to have someone else do all the dirty work, and then when it comes to negotiating with the Govt. they NFU can say "FFA are nothing to do with us, but they show the strength of feeling within the industry".

welshnwilling:

I'm sure the NFU secretly find it quite useful to have someone else do all the dirty work, and then when it comes to negotiating with the Govt. they NFU can say "FFA are nothing to do with us, but they show the strength of feeling within the industry".

It's a very closely guarded secret then! That would be the ideal position, distancing themselves from direct action, but explaining why it's happening.

In practice that's not what happens, the NFU go overboard in condemning and threatening anyone involved in direct action.

welshnwilling:

Malcolm:

Has anybody seen any audited accounts for Farmers For Action?

Do they need accounts ? I've never heard of anyone paying a membership fee. They do a lot of good even though they come across as cranks sometimes. I'm sure the NFU secretly find it quite useful to have someone else do all the dirty work, and then when it comes to negotiating with the Govt. they NFU can say "FFA are nothing to do with us, but they show the strength of feeling within the industry".

A minimum of £30 a year according to their website. 1000 members x £30 x 10 years = a lot of moola. It should be accounted for surely. And have they ever had any elections? I've never heard of any.

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }

This presentation is confusing to say the least!

What are we being asked to vote on?

You state that "Farmers Weekly has tried to answer by identifying the top 20 organisations and non-farming pressure groups influencing the direction of British agriculture."

"The result is a Top 20 of the groups that have most sway when it comes to influencing government policy and consumer attitudes."

(This is an implied positive)

 

This I understand, however,

 

Do we "Vote NOW to have your say" on"who are the most influential lobby groups involved with agriculture and what do they stand for?"

or

" Farming Under Fire - Vote NOW to have your say on “anti-farming score” -to reflect their stance towards the realities of modern agriculture."

( This is an implied criticism)

 

Many "who are the most influential lobby groups involved with agriculture and what do they stand for" are working hard in support of a sound safe and sustainable approach to farming and the rural economy, without harming the public or the environment, ie they are pro sustainable, effective farming.

 

Many, like Georgina Downs are challenging Government inadequacy; to ensure sustainable, safe and effective farming both for those who work in the rural economy, for the public at large and for specific groups at risk, like rural residents.

 

Others like the Soil Association show a sustainable way forward; CPRE are NOT a NIMBY organisation, they are trying to preserve farm land a precious and vulnerable resource.

 

Some Groups, like PAN, purport to be the voice of the public and residents whilst behind the scenes, within Government Committees, in my experience, will not adequately and robustly challenge Government, but will only adopt a compromised weak position, when push comes to shove ie. sit on the fence and speak of compromise and IPM.

 

So, can anyone enlighten me to what we are actually meant to be voting for?

Go with whot ever you like, i doo

The most depressing bunch of losers I have ever observed, all  the lot of them more interested in their own childish obsessions and irrational  phobias than the truly worthwhile business of feeding the starving people of the world.

Dick

Ah, you must be one of those"enlightened" "forward thinking" conventional chappies fully subscribed to the  NFU

!You know, of those dicerning thinking farming types who believes Monsanto's "evidence based" mantra of " it's safe enough to drink" brigade for Glyphosate.

Each to there own; not my favorite tipple sadly!

Wow rurales that was a cutting reply,but you are almost right although I usually drink Stella  rather than Glyphosate.

Dick

 What I would like to know, and I am not being a smart alec, is why after years of use glyphosate is now "bad".   It seems to coincide more with GM crops than anything to do with the actual herbicide.  The leftie Huff post has one article after another about the evils of Roundup, including that it causes birth defects, and GM crops, they also cause birth defects in livestock(so says the anti GM crowd).  All of my cattle and all of my pigs(when I had pigs) were snarfing down 100% GM grain, with no birth defects, so where is this happening?

When you get right down to it, no chemical is 100% safe, so a decision has to be made.  Do thousands of city folk want to return to the land to weed crops by hand for low pay, do they want to go hungry, or do they want a handful of farmers to grow enough food to feed all of them, using modern techniques that include chemicals?

Exactly right Kansas.

 If the city folks were to try growing crops without effective herbicides like glyphosate then more people would die from starvation than they do at the moment.

 I think much of the anti farming hysteria is  motivated by left wing individuals who are opposed to the private ownership of land and who are supporters of the communist way of life,Karl Marx and all that crap.

I just wish they would be honest enough to admit  that they are opposed to capitalism in any way shape or form and let those of us who feed the world get on with our work whilst they carried on wasting their lives pursuing policies which will reduce the total amount of food in the world and thereby increasing the suffering of the hungry masses..

Dick

 We have reached common ground on the Stella!

Surely, THE FOLLOWING is the real issue for Farming under fire........

With the Treasury and the Communities & Local Government  arm of Government completely sidelining DEFRA and Spelman;  the NFU team not  a bunch of happy bunnies at the moment, having given DEFRA secretary Caroline Spelman a telling off for not taking farming seriously enough......

You can forget the Farming 2030 initiative being taken seriously and look forward to Osbourne's plans to concrete wholesale grade 2 and 3a prime (GREENFIELD)  land ( we have about 1000 hectares of grade 2 and 3a set aside for concreting locally...

Natural England, who (allegedly) oversee this have made local staff redundant and they have been warned not to speak out against NPPF and effectively, not to enforce !

So forget TIN049 - Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land......forget " How this important natural resource is used is vital to sustainable development. This includes taking the right decisions about protecting it from inappropriate development. This note explains the Government Policy to protect agricultural land ............" and bring it on Eric & George............

National Trust and CPRE are NOT anti farming,;the are pro farming and provide  really the only protection against this "Greenest Government Ever 's" shortsightedness and crackpot idea we can (house) build our way out of the mess we are in ! Look to Ireland and see the result!

 

I'm not voting as I don't believe in giving any of them the satisfaction of knowing that they are having an effect on agriculture.

Winkers and denglewarts, every last one of them.

dick , they may be left wing commies, but they still want their house to rise in value!

ruralres:

( we have about 1000 hectares of grade 2 and 3a set aside for concreting locally...

Where would this be ?

ruralres:

Natural England, who (allegedly) oversee this have made local staff redundant and they have been warned not to speak out against NPPF and effectively, not to enforce !

This is an interesting accusation and I guess you may be able to share some good evidence with us?

ruralres:

National Trust and CPRE are NOT anti farming

  Another interesting statement given that FW do not appear to consider them anti farming as such, but as having a powerful influence on farming policies and practices.

You have an interesting angle of debate ruralres. From your posts it may be inferred that you do not earn the majority of your income from farming but maybe, like me, earn only part of your income from your argricultural / horticultural labours. Are you, like many of us, aiming to be as self sustainable as it is practical to be in this complex world?

 

 

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }

" We have about 1000 hectares of grade 2 and 3a set aside for concreting locally" We are in Suffolk.

 

Natural England I have been dealing with planning issues and Local Development Frameworks in Suffolk, some which have regard and polices for agricultural land and others which do not.

 

Allegedly, Natural England, an offshoot of DEFRA, is entrusted with, overseeing and enforcing protection of farm land, particularly " the best and most versatile." When developers own the land, this is inconvenient; but Natural England don't seem to have staff to provide robust protection- budget cuts, lack of resources; they seem to lack real interest?

NPPF (The National Planning Policy Framework`) which will impact on green field/ agricultural land and the viability of farming- Natural England and English Heritage have been warned not to raise objection.

 

National Trust and CPRE have mounted a very spirited defence of this land; therefore they do have a powerful influence on farming policies and practises.

As to, "Are you, like many of us, aiming to be as self sustainable as it is practical to be in this complex world?"

 

Most certainly yes. I have lots of friends who work in the farming industry and who are devastated at the Government's attitude to the rural economies and farming. I have grown my own produce in a large garden for 35 years and have a large allotment too.

 

Also, the family and garden have been badly impacted over the years from proximity to agricultural spraying and have had to refer to H & S exec and PIAP. ( Total waste of time).

Malcolm:

A minimum of £30 a year according to their website

Malcolm, you are quite right. I apologise.

No need to apologise, welshnwilling....

Getting back to the topic. What is the point of the article? Is it just to fill some space in the magazine or does it have a purpose?

Malcolm:

What is the point of the article? Is it just to fill some space in the magazine or does it have a purpose?

 

To remind us just how many people dislike us and think they could do a better job.