In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without
advisory cost:-)

Anyway, you weren't holding him properly.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:38:58 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Friday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper
details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment
of some 7/8 years back.

When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the
inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it
was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into
an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small
farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got
that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's
organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers.

As a small farmer, and an NFU member, I find that horribly plausible.

McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Tim Lamb wrote in message
news
In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble
enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there
were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured
without
advisory cost:-)

Anyway, you weren't holding him properly.

nah, he kilfiled me a long time ago I think
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


regards
--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the
inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it
was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into
an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small
farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got
that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's
organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers.

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Not being a member, I could not possibly comment. The situation is not
helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim the monetary compensation.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
says...
In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

Ahem!

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without
advisory cost:-)

Typical - always want summat for nowt. g
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

In article ,
says...

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK
had in
1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so
why
couldn't the farmers.

and you never did answer my direct questions did you?

But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

No, I came to that conclusion a while back. Not that I was too surprised
though.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:20:15 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Not being a member, I could not possibly comment.

??

The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

Last thing I heard about the negotiations (that was Friday, yesterday
evening) they (the polsky and the czcech included) were down to
discussing boxes with petty money like 250 million Euro, i.e. they
were discussing whether or not a few colored feathers and glass
beads should be added to the packages. And, unsurprisingly, the
morning news announces, that an agreement has been reached.
So, that's probably it, 10 more countries will now join the EU.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set
quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years.

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

Last thing I heard about the negotiations (that was Friday, yesterday
evening) they (the polsky and the czcech included) were down to
discussing boxes with petty money like 250 million Euro, i.e. they
were discussing whether or not a few colored feathers and glass
beads should be added to the packages. And, unsurprisingly, the
morning news announces, that an agreement has been reached.
So, that's probably it, 10 more countries will now join the EU.

So where is the final geographical boundary and what chance to Brussels
bureaucrats have of controlling the politics?

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten
Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has
never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter
9.pdf

gives agrimonetary compensation


97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25

figures in £millions.

this shows the money paid as opposed the the amount that should have
been paid. Even in 99/00 they only paid a proportion, so I think that
you can assume a minimum of £250 million a year should have been going
into agriculture (I think I have heard figures of £500 million)
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

In article , Jim Webster
writes

http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm...urrent/chapter
9.pdf

gives agrimonetary compensation


97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
£0 £0 £152.4 £76.6 £28.6 £25

figures in £millions.

this shows the money paid as opposed the the amount that should have
been paid. Even in 99/00 they only paid a proportion, so I think that
you can assume a minimum of £250 million a year should have been going
into agriculture (I think I have heard figures of £500 million)

Thanks Jim, I suspect Torsten is pulling my leg:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:39:30 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)

It is not a large sum but over the period we are discussing it has never
(TTBOMK) been claimed or paid. Something to do with Maggies rebate and
our treasury having to fund more than 70% of the total.

Do you think you are drawing attention to a significant factor in the
situation, and if so, why?

I've seen the thought expressed on a website, from memory, that "as
long as these unclaimed monetary compensations are not made available
British family farms will continue to disappear". I consider that hype
unbased in reality, what do you think?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:20:48 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:16:08 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

OK, and what were you thinking about these matters?

Hmm. It was your brain I hoped to explore. The initial level was set
quite high and then reduced drastically in subsequent years.

Would you be referring here to one of the errors in McSharry, which
you said was quickly adjusted?

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?