Keir Starmer's time is up

[burtabraham]

Blimey. I can see how it suits the perception of their industry and protest to mouth such meaningless tosh, but for people unwilling to pay tax it's quite a stretch to believe that they do what they do to "help people".

Their motivations are irrelevant. They feed us. That is a fact.

It seems your objection here is that you don't get the produce of their labour for free.

 

[brogdale]

Their motivations are irrelevant. They feed us. That is a fact.

It seems your objection here is that you don't get the produce of their labour for free.

That is arrant nonsense. The farm boss class do not feed us. If you want to pursue the notion that someone's labour results in the food we eat, try reading Angel's story:

Eight-seven-five. Angel still remembers her number, months after leaving the UK. The number assigned to her by the farm. The number used instead of her name when her supervisor ordered her to work faster or punished her.

Angel, a single mother from South Africa, said that she felt like a prisoner, being shouted at and undermined constantly, no matter how hard she worked. Her name and the real number she was called by have been changed to protect her identity.

“Even before we start work the supervisors would be screaming at us... they would treat you like an animal,” she said.

Dearnsdale said: “We do refer to members of staff by their numbers, however this is not to degrade the individual but purely on a business need basis as is standard in the industry.”

At Dearnsdale, those who made mistakes or failed to hit targets were routinely sanctioned. The most common punishment was to have their shift cut short – every day several workers would be sent back to their caravans after only a few hours’ work. That meant that on a day when a worker was hoping to earn money for eight hours of work, they would be paid for only three. The practice is common on farms using the visa scheme.

‘They treat you like an animal’: How British farms run on exploitation

Nice folk, these farm bosses.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's appalling and clearly needs to change. But the majority of farmers in the UK are not "farm bosses" of that kind. We're talking a little at crossed purposes here as nobody is defending the above.

 

[burtabraham]

That is arrant nonsense. The farm boss class do not feed us. If you want to pursue the notion that someone's labour results in the food we eat, try reading Angel's story:







‘They treat you like an animal’: How British farms run on exploitation

Nice folk, these farm bosses.

Which is absolutely despicable. The correct response is to this is the unionisation of the agricultural labour market, rather than relying on a reserve army of labour who are prone to exploitation. But to conflate this sort of practice with the average family farm is ridiculous. Focus your anger more intelligently, otherwise you risk making the situation even worse.

Case in point, let's go back to my previous question that you pretended not to understand. Would this proposed tax increase or decrease the likelihood of exploitative practices such as these continuing?

 

[brogdale]

Whereas you're mouthing internalised neoliberal concepts.

Not in the case of what you quoted there. People who don't want to pay tax don't come to the forefront of my mind in the category of wanting to help others; simple as. Nothing internalised or neoliberal there.

 

[brogdale]

So what? We have to start talking like Smith?

Not at all. We're talking about a very loyal tory supporting cohort of capitalists who run businesses to make money. For them to cover their real motivation with guff about "helping people" is just crass. I'm genuinely surprised to see posters fall for such ethical-wash.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not at all. We're talking about a very loyal tory supporting cohort of capitalists who run businesses to make money. For them to cover their real motivation with guff about "helping people" is just crass. I'm genuinely surprised to see posters fall for such ethical-wash.

I'm not falling for anything. I haven't listened to a single one of the protestors. These are all my own ideas. And if you'd been reading carefully, you would have seen me saying more than once that we shouldn't romanticise farmers or their motivations. Doesn't mean they don't feed us. Mediated by money, of course, because that's the system we live in. But we don't have to go along with Smith. We don't have to think of ourselves or others in those reductionist anti-human terms, even if they might be selfish bastards in many ways.

 

[ska invita]

Not at all. We're talking about a very loyal tory supporting cohort of capitalists who run businesses to make money. For them to cover their real motivation with guff about "helping people" is just crass. I'm genuinely surprised to see posters fall for such ethical-wash.

Yeah BEHOLD FOR WE ARE THE STEWARDS OF THE LAND AND FROM OUR BASKET SHALL THE NATIONS BREAD FLOW guff gets wheeled out anytime they want their own way. There are some conscientious farmers of course but this line is rinsed out

 

[brogdale]

Which is absolutely despicable. The correct response is to this is the unionisation of the agricultural labour market, rather than relying on a reserve army of labour who are prone to exploitation. But to conflate this sort of practice with the average family farm is ridiculous. Focus your anger more intelligently, otherwise you risk making the situation even worse.

Case in point, let's go back to my previous question that you pretended not to understand. Would this proposed tax increase or decrease the likelihood of exploitative practices such as these continuing?

I've worked on "average family farms" where these practices now occur. As long as farm owners can get away with with exploiting and mistreating migrant workers engaged (at arms length) through "agencies"/gangmasters. they will.

 

[burtabraham]

I've worked on "average family farms" where these practices now occur. As long as farm owners can get away with with exploiting and mistreating migrant workers engaged (at arms length) through "agencies"/gangmasters. they will.

And the answer to my question?

 

[brogdale]

And the answer to my question?

It's there. Read.

 

[burtabraham]

It's there. Read.

The question: "Would this proposed tax increase or decrease the likelihood of exploitative practices such as these continuing?"

Nowhere in your reply did you answer this.

 

[brogdale]

The question: "Would this proposed tax increase or decrease the likelihood of exploitative practices such as these continuing?"

Nowhere in your reply did you answer this.

The motivation to exploit labour is accumulation. How do you imagine that IHT fiscal arrangements would affect that motivation?

 

[burtabraham]

The motivation to exploit labour is accumulation. How do you imagine that fiscal arrangements would affect that motivation?

Because the sort of large conglomerate that these farms will end up in the hands of will inevitably be far more willing and able to exploit people.

 

[brogdale]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't tax the capitalists so that they're nice to the workers?

 

[brogdale]

Because the sort of large conglomerate that these farms will end up in the hands of will inevitably be far more willing and able to exploit people.

Wrong again. There are many shocking "family owned farms" where this shit goes on. I know.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Time will tell. There are big picture issues here to do with the ongoing creation of megafarms and the introduction of practices common in the US and elsewhere that not so long ago were never seen in the UK, such as feedlot farming. Any government's farming policy needs to be judged by its overall effect on farming.

My bet: in five years' time, there will be fewer, bigger farms than there are now, which is exactly the opposite direction from the direction we need to be going in. Tesco will be happy.

 

[burtabraham]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't tax the capitalists so that they're nice to the workers?

I'm suggesting that the proposed inheritance tax will centralise the ownership of land and capital, thus ramping up the level of exploitation. It's not taxation that is the problem. It is the specific tax. Like I have already said, tax the sale of land to dissuade land speculation, tax the proceeds of land to pay for public amenities in the local area, tax absentee ownership of land, and ownership of too much land. All of those are fine.

 

[burtabraham]

Wrong again. There are many shocking "family owned farms" where this shit goes on. I know.

No one is saying that there aren't

 

[brogdale]

I'm suggesting that the proposed inheritance tax will centralise the ownership of land and capital, thus ramping up the level of exploitation. It's not taxation that is the problem. It is the specific tax. Like I have already said, tax the sale of land to dissuade land speculation, tax the proceeds of land to pay for public amenities in the local area, tax absentee ownership of land, and ownership of too much land. All of those are fine.

That's what the protesting farm owners and bosses are saying. The processes of agricultural consolidation have been reducing the number of smaller holdings for the last 70 or 80 years. The degree to which the state taxes farmers on death is wholly incidental to those broader drivers.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Time will tell. There are big picture issues here to do with the ongoing creation of megafarms and the introduction of practices common in the US and elsewhere that not so long ago were never seen in the UK, such as feedlot farming. Any government's farming policy needs to be judged by its overall effect on farming.

My bet: in five years' time, there will be fewer, bigger farms than there are now, which is exactly the opposite direction from the direction we need to be going in. Tesco will be happy.

It's notable that Tesco and the rest of the supermarket players have had plenty to say about the NIC increase and have been issuing warnings about food prices increasing as a result (what a surprise!), but they've had nothing at all to say about the IHT move in the same budget. Their silence does lend further credence to the suggestion of McTernan that the free market requires the sweeping away of the independent family farm and that this was partly Reeves/HMT motivation.

You are correct about the impact over the next period. I'll also predict that there wil be a sharp increase of land sold off and converted to non-farming use between now and 2029. In turn this will create a rise in the amount of food imports exposing the UK further to market whims and worsening environmental and ethical issues in the sector. I'll also predict that even the meagre tax take target will be missed as the big players and rich simply devise new avoidance methods that a wealth tax would have prevented. Only little people pay tax...

On every measure Reeves has moved the industry in the wrong direction.

 

[burtabraham]

That's what the protesting farm owners and bosses are saying.

Correct

The processes of agricultural consolidation have been reducing the number of smaller holdings for the last 70 or 80 years.

Also correct

The degree to which the state taxes farmers on death is wholly incidental to those broader drivers.

But will they make the situation better, worse, or have no effect?

 

[brogdale]

Correct



Also correct



But will they make the situation better, worse, or have no effect?

Go on then, say what you think.

 

[burtabraham]

Go on then, say what you think.

I've literally been doing that for two days now.

 

[brogdale]

I've literally been doing that for two days now.

You believe all of those farm owners who say they'll "have to sell up"? Come on, really?

 

[burtabraham]

I give up

 

[brogdale]

I give up

That's fine. I'll not be responding to this topic in this thread any more; there's a perfectly good dedicated thread now and this should really be reserved for cataloguing the failure that Starmer's political career arrive at.