Davidson Richardson : Opinion 22/04/05

EARLY IN the election campaign, several months ago, I found myself sitting opposite Conservative leader Michael Howard at dinner. In our brief conversation I told him of the greenhouse gases being emitted by flying in imports of increasing quantities of food. I also spoke of the futility of asking UK farmers to compete with those in countries like Brazil where costs are low and exploitation rife.

“I don”t think the Brazilians would see it that way,” he replied. He seemed to see no reason to control such imports to help UK farmers. More seriously for the future of the planet, he appeared to dismiss the environmental damage being done as unimportant. The dinner table is probably not the best place for detailed discussion of agricultural policies. But I left the event underwhelmed at his grasp of issues important to farmers and vital to the world.

sour grapes

At another dinner I sat next to an ex-government minister who had been replaced in one of Tony Blair’s reshuffles. Because of this his views were probably tainted by sour grapes. But despite the fact that he knew I was associated with the press, he could hardly wait to dig the dirt on the Labour Party. Discretion forbids me to divulge all he told me, but one key issue was the hostility between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. “It’s far worse than allegations in the popular press,” he told me. “They can hardly bear to speak to one another.” When I saw the pair in a party political TV programme the other evening, I remembered that conversation. They acted like best friends and I was reminded, yet again, of the falsity of politics. It was ever thus. But it seems to me it has become worse because most politicians are “professionals” straight from university without experience of the real world. The past, and now retired, Father of the House of Commons Tam Dalyell summed up his younger colleagues in a radio interview the other day. He said most of them had never done a proper job in their lives.

Even so I decided to check the manifestoes for agricultural content. Was I thinking what the Conservatives were thinking? Could Britain go forward, not back? Was there a real alternative?

Most fundamental in the Conservative document is the populist policy for more reform of the CAP, “to make it less burdensome for farmers and taxpayers’, whatever that means. More positive is the party’s support for clear labelling of British food; for farmers’ markets and local food projects; for all publicly procured food (for schools, hospitals, etc) to be assured and carry the Little Red Tractor logo; for abolishing the hunting ban; and action against illegal travellers’ camps.

Farming takes up little more space in the Labour manifesto. The industry’s role in producing food for the nation is almost ignored. Instead it concentrates on continued improvement of environmental performance through stewardship schemes. It says it will promote biomass and biofuel crops and tackle diffuse pollution in water without costs falling on water customers. It will also introduce a new Animal Welfare Bill and crack down on fly tipping.

fair trade deal

Internationally, Labour says it will press for the conclusion of an ambitious fair trade deal to open markets to exports from poorer countries. That sounds great and remarkably similar to Michael Howard”s comment to me, but betrays the same lack of understanding of the real situation.

The Lib Dem’s promises match some from each of the other two and add greater awareness of global warming and help for new entrants. But do they have a realistic chance of forming a government?

Against a background of 6000 job losses at MG Rover, no party mentioned the 60,000 lost from farming in recent years or the anticipated 20,000 more if EU sugar reforms go through. Farming is an almost invisible speck on the political radar screen.