« 131 in a year | Main | First £20,000 Dormouse Bridge »

August 15, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kay Tie

No, I have an iPhone. And despite its crazy autocorrect, it spells better than you. Only one of us is dumber than a phone..

patrick

"You talk like an urban Marxist who have never spoken to a farmer. Fool."

'Who has never'
you are illiterate.

Kay Tie

Billionaire farmers eh? You talk like an urban Marxist who have never spoken to a farmer. Fool.

I don't defend the CAP. It is a waste of taxpayer money and corrupts farming.

Patrick

Kay Tie
"Blame for starvation: Eco-hippies. And politicians."

It's precisely what we expect from you on here, perverse comments that contribute nothing in either substance or logic.

The arable farms in the UK receive obscene handouts from the poor. They are subsidised for machinery, crops, chemicals,and yield.

They are compensated for losses. When they pollute rivers with their artificial nitrates it's the public that pays through the Environment Agency.

They produce publically funded crops to send to China meanwhile destroy precious soils and biodiversity.

They displace small farms (that don't have hand outs) that then ruins entire villages.

Take away the handouts from the Billionaire landowners, remove the regulation that guarantees them above market prices and what would you get?

You would find that the small farmer could still offer the same price while the 'patriotic' Billionaire would bawl and tantrum all the way out of the country to get comfort from his tax free account.

Big corporate business is sucessful in UK farming due to the collective subsides from the poor.

Free enterprise - more like free money!

Kay Tie

Funny as it may seem, I don't approve of subsidies to pointless industries.

Ad

I expect you will change your argument on biofuels completely now. After all, there are profits to be made and only a no good 'eco-hippy' alongside the 'jealous lefty brigade' would try and stop them!

Ad

'Price increases from bio-fuel laws passed by politicians appeasing eco-hippies: immense.'

You couldn't be more wrong. Here, this took all of two seconds to find:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509

It is corporate interests who have been lobbying to promote biofuels.

'Biofuel groups win EU Worst Lobbying Awards'

http://euobserver.com/9/27280

Kay Tie

"The change has to come from ourselves and the way we shop.Sourcing locally produced food can be time consuming to begin with but highly rewarding."

Good. I'm glad you like that. It's your choice. And if lots of people make the same choice, all the food producers will react to that. If, however, most people choose to use Tesco for food then I hope you will have the good grace to respect the wishes of the majority and not attempt to coerce the majority into accepting your choices.

Kay Tie

"Protectionism would be tariffs on imports and subsidising smaller more environmentally sustainable farms. I don't think that is necessary."

Eco-hippy wheat: £2000/ton.

Canadian Prairie wheat: £500/ton.

Bread from former: £2.00/loaf.

Bread from latter: £1.20/loaf.

Sales of eco-hippy wheat: zero.

Whining by eco-hippies for tax-payer subsidies: infinite.

"Prices on the world market will likely continue to go up due to the demand from a growing world population coupled with more frequent incidents of drought due to global warming."

Price increases from population growth: tiny.

Price increases from increased wealth of Chinese peasants: bigger.

Price increases from bio-fuel laws passed by politicians appeasing eco-hippies: immense.

Blame for starvation: Eco-hippies. And politicians.

Patrick

If the government suddenly took an interset in food quality as opposed to quantity things would drastically change.If they did it would be the first time for over 60 years.

Many rich landowners , lords, MPS,chemical companies, corporates including supermarkets etc own vast tracks of arable in the UK.

Vested interests in chemicals and huge arable subsidies are just two reason's why the resistance is so powerful.

In Graham Harvey's recent book Carbon Fields he studies the environmental impact of arable. In a nutshell it gives us three things, mineral deficient food, degraded soil's, and destroy's wildlife.

If only a small percentage of land changed back from big arable to small pasture based farms there would be many winners.

The Grasses absorb and store CO2 at an amazing rate, arable land does the opposite.Cows grazing on chemical free pasture produce milk full of omega 3's and anti-cancer properties that intensive farms don't.The soils are repaired by grass and grazing instead of being hammered by humus killing obscene chemics.

So the public get healthy food, the soil fertility is repaired and through the herb-rich grazing biodiversity builds up again.
Not to mention the return of small family farms.

The Government are not interested and feel the solution will always be more chemicals.

"It is not possible to resolve a problem with the same mind that created it"
Albert Einstein

The change has to come from ourselves and the way we shop.Sourcing locally produced food can be time consuming to begin with but highly rewarding.

Supermarkets give us lots of useful things and we all use them at times. They also give us record breaking small farm bunkruptcies, pesticide residues, mineral deficient garbage and a countryside devoid of wildlife.

Ad

'We went through this nonsense in the 19th Century and the Corn Laws. It's particularly amusing to find the usual lefty brigade of today advocating the same protectionism that makes the poor pay ever higher prices.'

Producing more food is not protectionist. Protectionism would be tariffs on imports and subsidising smaller more environmentally sustainable farms. I don't think that is necessary. I'm sure there must be other ways of helping smaller farmers to deliver better products produced in a better way to the market more competitively. Co-operation amongst participants in a trial scheme to overcome the disadvantage in economies of scale and market power for example.

In the current climate customers may indeed have to CHOOSE to pay more for these products. However, you have to consider that food prices on the world market will likely continue to go up due to the demand from a growing world population coupled with more frequent incidents of drought due to global warming.


Kay Tie

"Having such a large trade deficit on food and being so dependent on the global market place also means that in the longer term there are going to be problems with rising prices due to a growing world population demanding more food."

We went through this nonsense in the 19th Century and the Corn Laws. It's particularly amusing to find the usual lefty brigade of today advocating the same protectionism that makes the poor pay ever higher prices.

Who would have thought you lot would make such wonderful exemplars of old style Tories? Actually, George Orwell did:

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Ad

'The return of small family farms producing chemical free quality food will be good news all round.'

It is a workable alternative to large scale mono-culture and pesticide use. It is also a sustainable one with many benefits as you say.

It makes financial and environmental sense. This article looks at the economic implications of increasing food production in a sustainable manner:

‘Working out who needs to do what is the key priority. Getting the public and private sector to agree that sustainability ticks lots of boxes simultaneously: jobs, fiscal deficit, the environment and climate change.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/food-help-cut-fiscal-deficit

It just takes a bit of planning. Promoting skills and knowledge such as permaculture and organic farming. Planning authorities designating more land for such usage. There is no shortage of available land if a bit of creative thinking is applied. There would also be no shortage of people willing to take part.

Having such a large trade deficit on food and being so dependent on the global market place also means that in the longer term there are going to be problems with rising prices due to a growing world population demanding more food. There will also perhaps be more droughts due to global warming. Droughts in Russia have sent global wheat prices soaring and depending on harvests in other areas they could continue going upwards. This will affect the cost of many of our food items.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/fat-cats-who-hedge-their-bets-as-they-reap-what-others-sow-14902913.html

Patrick

Ad
We only have to look at the USA as a lesson in how to destroy land.

The American Grasslands , a huge area of land was devasted by European settlers.

Thousands of years of nature building fertility was ruined in under three generations.

The end result was instead of providing an anchor for crops ,the top soil (now dust) blew into the air to form the dust bowls.

The US response was swift and departments were formed to repair the soils.There were no chemical fertilizers or obscene pesticides avilable so only natural solutions could follow.

Sixty years ago we had the technology to farm Biologically . This technology was not profitable , enter the chemicals artificial
nitrate fertilizers, Monsanto, ICI etc.

The Governments of the UK and US (post WW2)needed more food production and have run farming ever since.

Since WW2 thanks to chemicals we have degraded our soils, produced mineral dificient foods (complete with pesticide ressidues), destroyed 97% of our meadow's , and devasted our wildlife.

All the above so that corporate capitalists can profit from chemicals. Family farms have gone bust at an unprecedented rate while the huge arable farms are owned by either a Billionaire or a supermarket.

The good news is that the technology gained to help with the dust bowls is now being used in the US.

Biological farming in the US is massive and getting bigger. It's happening here too.

The science rejected for a fast buck is now being used to restore soils and grow food you can taste. This style of chemical free farming on grasslands will help restore the biodiversity also.

The return of small family farms producing chemical free quality food will be good news all round.

Ad

Patrick: 'Take farming for instance. Let's start by kicking out all the corporate monsters that own vast tracks of Eastern England.
They 'contribute' by degrading soil, destroying wildlife , and growing polluted corn to send to China.
(How would we possibly cope without them?)'

Smaller farms are at a disadvantage in a free market against big companies who pursue profits on a grand scale. Using pesticides etc is an example of profits not being in the longer term wider benefit if evidence of soil damage is anything to go by.

'We could then rewind to small farms that will mean the re-emergence of families and communities as well as healthy food.
Better for our health and environment.'

I think this it is an important idea which has to be considered. We could as a country manage our land a lot better. The aristocracy number some tens of thousands, but holds the vast majority of land. There is no land shortage. Buy it a reasonable price and put it to better use such as you suggest.

patrick

Kay Tie
"You have mis-used the word "innovate". There is no innovation in nature."

The human body consists of Oxygen,Carbon,Hydrogen,Nitrogen,Calcium, phosphurus,potassium,Sulfur,Sodium,Chlorine
etc..........

You might notice that these elements are not factory assembled items, put together by a London based corporate group.They are the same elements that are contained in the whole of nature including every other species of animal ,plant ,soil and the earth's crust.

The fact that we share over 98% of our genes with apes is never going to do it either.

The human race is still and has always been desperate to detach and dissociate itself from nature.

We are far to essential ,ingenious, and caapable to ever possibly belong to 'lesser' important things.

You share 70% of your genes with a sea sponge and 98% with a Bonobo and probably a (larger than human average) percentage with Ann widdecombe.

No innovation in nature = no innovation in mankind!


Kay Tie

"generations get to look forward to ever worsening lifestyles and life chances, ever extending working life along with ever decreasing income."

We will all suffer a drop in the standard of living in absolute terms, yes. That's because we have to pay back the debt run up over the last decade.

One we are over this (and it will take less than a generation) we will continue to prosper if we don't destroy our ability to innovate.

Kay Tie

"Notice how quote 2 completely contradicts quote 1."

Notice how your grasp of the meanings of simple words has failed. Such as the word "completely".

"Did the environment create the plant or the plant create the environment?"

Both things are true. But in neither case is there an active design going on (I do hope you're not a Creationist).

Kay Tie

"I can tell you that there are people in Britain right now who struggle to buy shoes for their kids."

I would be very interested to know what else the parents of those children spend their money on.

DG

OK, I'm not following the nature/innovation bit (mainly through lack of application) but I can tell you that there are people in Britain right now who struggle to buy shoes for their kids.

Sure, you can pick up cheap stuff for around a tenner, but they don't tend to be a good fit, hurt the feet and fall apart in 8-12 weeks. Then you need another tenner for new shoes and the poor kid's still walking around with rubbish on their feet.

Patrick

Kay-Tie

Two of your quotes on innovation

"You have mis-used the word "innovate". There is no innovation in nature."

"This implies that animals have a culture (i.e. a set of behaviours) that change. Some higher animals do - chimps for example - but most do not."

Notice how quote 2 completely contradicts quote 1.

"Plants do not. A change in behaviour of organisms comes about through genetic mutation or a change in the environment. Neither of these is "innovation." "


And the change in the environment is largely influenced by plants.

Plants don't just adapt to a changing environment they are key to creating new niches and new habitats through their own chemistry.

So i'll leave this one to Hawking or God.
Did the environment create the plant or the plant create the environment?

HuwOS

"You're suggesting 99% of the population will have to go barefoot? Mad as a box of frogs."-Kaytie

As always KayTie, you invent your own argument and then attack it for it's stupidity and inanity. Fair enough, it is after all your argument.

What vision of the future do you have KayTie, where ALL children would be 99% of the population, never mind how you think that the percentage of children from families in direst poverty could manage to make up that percentage.

We had the laissez faire, lack of government regulation in industry, people lived in slums besides which the direst council estate today would look like heaven.
Children, as well as those adults lucky enough, got to work 12 hour days, or more, 6 days a week.
We know where leaving business to regulate itself gets us and its badness bears no relationship to errors that were made by the broad left.

Sure unions got too cocky and too stroppy, but those kinds of issues could have been dealt with properly, rather than in the selfish, spoiled brat way that the right preferred, of legislating them into irrelevance.
Well the right has had its way from the 80's up to today and now generations get to look forward to ever worsening lifestyles and life chances, ever extending working life along with ever decreasing income.
The worst of it is, people on the right, are too stupid and too self obsessed to understand how this will impact on them.
The majority of them imagine they will be on the right side of the financial chasm, just as the vast majority of delusional fools who imagine past life experiences or pine for the 19th and earlier, better centuries where they would of course not be servants, serfs or slaves but lords,ladies, kings and queens.

The left made errors in the post war period, but none that were not fixable without as the saying goes, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But the right prefers to do so, sell the bath and then righteously condemn the damaged dirty babies they created.

You class all left wing thought and ideas as being outdated failed ideologies, but yours is the oldest and the one that most clearly failed all but the tiniest percentage.
That is all it can ever offer and its failure is the reason why the left began, the principles of fairness do not belong to the right, which has no claim to them, fairness is a noble principle and belongs squarely to the left.

You just failed to learn the lesson that most parents try to inculcate in their children, that of sharing.
You think if you can grab it, it's yours by right, and anyone daring to even suggest it is not, never mind actually taking some of what you grabbed away from you is evil incarnate.

According to your own reports, as society has been structured up to now, it has allowed you to have social mobility, an apparently incredible leap upwards for you.
The regimes, mostly set up in the post war period have carried you, but you don't recognise that or value it.
They have allowed you to do rather well, again according to the impression you attempt to convey and yet when it comes to doing your part, you balk.
All of a sudden, it is you and only you, with perhaps some input from your own family who got you where you are.
Not the housing, which if the left had to do again, would be better, but was infinitely better than the slums you would otherwise have had.
Not the education which if the left had its way would be better but was still infinitely better than leaving school at 12 to become a maid if you were lucky.
You've been carried and if you've done well it was thanks to those who put in the work so that you would have the opportunities and the leg up.
You reject all this, thinking it is you who have done whatever you have done and everyone else just wants to have a piece of whatever you have managed to create for yourself.
Still, it shows you do have an imagination, a broken, fractured, alien and nonsensical one, but it is certainly something that is very much all your own.
Cheer up, you have achieved the ultimate aspiration of the English, you are comfortable and still able to complain bitterly, perfection.

Kay Tie

"But an individual at some point acted in an innovative manner"

This implies that animals have a culture (i.e. a set of behaviours) that change. Some higher animals do - chimps for example - but most do not. Plants do not. A change in behaviour of organisms comes about through genetic mutation or a change in the environment. Neither of these is "innovation."

patrick

"I take it you think that a species has a mind and thinks and can shape itself? What a weird religion you subscribe to. I should read a bit of Darwin if I were you."

I don't think that the ancestors of the giraffes (that had short necks) sat around in a circle and decided to make it a new policy to reach up higher for their leaves.

But an individual at some point acted in an innovative manner to do so. This innovative behaviour was more successful than the alternative (starving) and so began the higher browsing behaviour and subsequent evolution of an elongated neck.

"No. Just that your rosy view of being in harmony with nature is just wishful thinking."

I'm proud to hold the view that the mess we are collectively in is largely of our own making.

Only by changing our ideals , our lust for money and wars , our dissociated view of nature and other animal species can a change be brought about.

I hold a minority viewpoint and therefore am far from optimistic.

Kay Tie

"A plant innovates (ie produces new idea's)"

A plant has ideas now (or idea's as you call them)? I should lay off reading John Wyndham if I were you.

"There are Millions of examples of innovations in nature. Sadly as you are not a shinging example yourself you are unable to actually grasp it."

I take it you think that a species has a mind and thinks and can shape itself? What a weird religion you subscribe to. I should read a bit of Darwin if I were you.

"Oh i see, because previous Hominid species cut wood for fires and killed animals for food that will justify our present environmental obscenities."

No. Just that your rosy view of being in harmony with nature is just wishful thinking.

patrick

Kay-Tie

"You have mis-used the word "innovate". There is no innovation in nature."

Innovation is not the monopoly of man.

A plant innovates (ie produces new idea's)
by evolving from a species living in water to collonizing land.

A cone bearing Gymnosperm millions of years ago used innovation to form the very first Angiosperm.

A modern day Bird is an example of an innovative reptile.

There are Millions of examples of innovations in nature. Sadly as you are not a shinging example yourself you are unable to actually grasp it.

So as usual wrong KT.

"As to the "destruction of the habitat", I think you'll find that mankind has been doing this since before our species existed"

Oh i see, because previous Hominid species cut wood for fires and killed animals for food that will justify our present environmental obscenities.

Pathetic!

Kay Tie

"Get your way, KayTie, with your idea of fairness and we will end up with children going barefoot on the streets of the cities and the relative poverty we have here now turning into absolute poverty."

Why would kids "go barefoot"? Sure, they might not be able to get that second plasma TV screen, or a new XBox console. And they might actually have to move out of a house in Kensington. But it's hardly going barefoot.

"Better hope you end up on the right side of the equation, and here's a clue if you aren't in the top 1% of earners then you won't."

You're suggesting 99% of the population will have to go barefoot? Mad as a box of frogs.

HuwOS

" Every person in this country is vastly more wealthy that those of even a hundred years ago" -KayTie

The positive advances fuelled by things like equal rights, unionisation, holiday pay, sick pay, national health service, progressive tax and redistribution.

All things that the right have been rolling back since the 80's, replacing them with their own version of advancement.
Those further advances fuelled by an unaffordable and unsustainable explosion in credit, which has now gone.

Leaving us where we are now.

With a generation that both is and will be less well off than the preceding one and the next generation guaranteed to be worse off again.
Along with the undesired right to work until you drop if you happen to be one of the paeons who make up the vast majority of the population, a right that most will not have the option to not exercise.

Get your way, KayTie, with your idea of fairness and we will end up with children going barefoot on the streets of the cities and the relative poverty we have here now turning into absolute poverty.

Better hope you end up on the right side of the equation, and here's a clue if you aren't in the top 1% of earners then you won't.
Where we're heading now is where we've been before and what was horrific and intolerable will not appear to be different next time around.

Kay Tie

"Nature (over Millennia) innovated and created a beutiful and self-sustainable habitat for us all."

You have mis-used the word "innovate". There is no innovation in nature.

You have also completely misunderstood how habitats form. They aren't self-sustainable. They are in constant flux.

"Along came modern man with a visceral passion to restrict wealth to a tiny minority"

Again, your grasp of language and logic fails you. Every person in this country is vastly more wealthy that those of even a hundred years ago. This wealth has not been restricted to a tiny minority, but in fact has been spread across the world. Such wealth creation continues today at its fastest ever pace, lifting billions out of poverty.

What your twisted thinking is boggled by is probably "relative wealth", whereby someone else has more of something than you. You hate this situation, even though you have more than you did. It's called jealousy (or jealousy-by-proxy, since most of the people who are obsessed with your bizarre notions of fairness - such as Polly Toynbee - are themselves wealthy people from privileged backgrounds). Jealousy is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. I suggest you try to deal with it because it will cause you significant psychological damage.

As to the "destruction of the habitat", I think you'll find that mankind has been doing this since before our species existed. It is only because of our advancement in science and technology that we are able to understand do something about the destruction. You would have us all chopping down trees for fuel, having killed in the name of fairness anyone capable of inventing a highly effective photovoltaic solar cell.

patrick

"Better the urge to innovate and create than the visceral passion to restrict and destroy."

Nature (over Millennia) innovated and created a beutiful and self-sustainable habitat for us all.

Along came modern man with a visceral passion to restrict wealth to a tiny minority and destroy our precious resources , habitat and eventually species.

I agree entirely KT

Kay Tie

"Wrong again KT , i don't vote Labour."

Didn't say you were. I'm sorry you misunderstood my words. I meant you are an ideologue, and those who are idealogues like you and are in the Labour Party are taking it back to a destructive past.

"Free endeavour has a symbiotic relationship with money and a lust for more."

Better the urge to innovate and create than the visceral passion to restrict and destroy. People with your beliefs killed millions in the 20th century. I don't think we want to see your type in power ever again.

Patrick

"The likes of Patrick - and the idealogues in the Labour Party like him - would rather a Year Zero approach where free endeavour was destroyed in the name of the nebulous concept of fairness."

Wrong again KT , i don't vote Labour.

Free endeavour has a symbiotic relationship with money and a lust for more.

All well and good from a selfish level if your business is successful.

However, choose to glance at the bigger picture and you might just notice toxic ocean's, deforestation, diminishing biodiversity, natural resources wasted to produce plastic crap in China etc etc

Vote for Kay - Tie Vote for ME!

Kay Tie

Yes, there were lots of achievements. I would have voted Labour in '45.

But look where ideology took us by the 1970s. A dead country that had just about lost everything. If Tony Blair has taught Labour anything it's that you can only have great works if there's a vibrant open economy that generates wealth. The likes of Patrick - and the idealogues in the Labour Party like him - would rather a Year Zero approach where free endeavour was destroyed in the name of the nebulous concept of fairness.

Paul Flynn

WHAT A MISERABLE RESPONSE KAYTIE. Rationing was not all bad. It ensured a fair distribution on sparse nutritional food on the basis of need. the 45 Government created the NHS and greatly improved the welfare state with family allowances. These were great achievements. Millions benefited.

Kay Tie

"By asking the corporate 'patriotic' bankers to give the country their money back!"

I don't even know where to begin. Barking mad. Delusional.

patrick

By asking the corporate 'patriotic' bankers to give the country their money back!

Kay Tie

Thank you for the honest answer Patrick. Could you now please answer my question about how you intend to make up the tax shortfall?

D.G.

Families and communities are vastly over-rated. Give me a close-knit group of friends and happy city anonymity any day of the week.

patrick

Kay Tie

"Firstly, it's "Healey"."

well spotted dear.

"Secondly, what does "sort out" mean? You mean "make them work for nothing"? Or make them leave the country?"

Exactly, good riddance!

Take farming for instance. Let's start by kicking out all the corporate monsters that own vast tracks of Eastern England.
They 'contribute' by degrading soil, destroying wildlife , and growing polluted corn to send to China.
(How would we possibly cope without them?)

We could then rewind to small farms that will mean the re-emergence of families and communities as well as healthy food.

Better for our health and environment.

Ethics that a corporate loving dragon could never begin to comprehend.

Kay Tie

"Shame we don't have another Dennis 'tax the rich until the pips squeek' Healy around now to sort the *ankers out!"

Firstly, it's "Healey".

Secondly, what does "sort out" mean? You mean "make them work for nothing"? Or make them leave the country?

If the former, I don't think (short of gulags and guns) that's going to work out.

If the latter, then OK, you don't want capitalists to live here and will make it hostile enough so they all go. Fine. But this then begs the question: how are you going to make up the shortfall in the tax that they would have paid until you made them go away? Or are you going to cut public services back so we live within our new egalitarian means? Either way, I think you should tell us how much that shortfall is going to be: how much of all income tax is currently paid by the top 1% who will become pip-crushed and then flee?

Or does "sort out" mean something else entirely?

patrick

Shame we don't have another Dennis 'tax the rich until the pips squeek' Healy around now to sort the *ankers out!

Kay Tie

Alas it was to be 11 years before rationing came to an end. And it would get wires before better - bread would become rationed. Tough times.

I can well see why Labour was voted in by a landslide then. Of course, later these dreams turned to dust, ending in the grotesqueries of trade unionism and 98% confiscatory tax rates.

The comments to this entry are closed.