The think tanks favored by Truss attack “massive transfer of wealth” to landowners | Agriculture

One of Liz Truss’s favorite right-wing think tanks has criticized the government for considering abandoning a much-touted new farmer financing structure, describing the current subsidy system as a “massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to landowners”.

Truss announced plans to Environmental Land Management Scheme Review (Elms), where farmers are paid to protect the environment, likely to return to payments that depend largely on the region. The plans have been criticized as “extremely economically inefficient” and for encouraging “laziness” by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

The International Energy Agency is a libertarian think tank Thanks for getting out With the many free market policies pursued by Truss and Chancellor Kwasi Quarting. Some of Truss employees I worked at the International Energy Agencyand founded its political wing, Freer. Truss, according to Head of the International Energy AgencyHe spoke more about her events than “any other politician over the past 12 years.”

The International Energy Agency has been criticized for its refusal policy Determine its donorssaying that doing so would violate their privacy and expose them to harassment.

Matthew Lesch, head of public policy at the International Energy Agency, said the agency would advise the government that if taxpayers’ money is paid to farmers, it should be for public goods, such as environmental protection. The current scheme, which pays farmers for every acre of land they use, he said, “is a huge transfer of wealth from taxpayers to landowners. Ultimately, this also hurts agricultural productivity, because it encourages laziness if you give people money without them having to invest in Modern technologies and just the possession of the land.”

Lesch added that the idea of ​​subsidizing landowners without any public good “is in conflict with the rest of the government’s growth agenda – it goes against what Liz Truss as Secretary of Commerce has been doing in promoting business deals”.

He suggested that farmers would welcome the idea of ​​paying for public goods, as it would be difficult to justify paying them for food production when consumers actually buy food from them in the supermarket.

Lesch said: “The eco-commodity system seems like a more sensible approach if the government is to continue to support the agricultural industry. From the farmers’ point of view, it would make sense to have a grassroots system that produces public goods. There is some justification for having a certain level of support for environmental purposes if It’s properly targeted and put at a level that makes sense for taxpayers. We really do give farmers money by buying produce from them, which is what any other industry does to survive.”

The National Farmers’ Union, which welcomed Elms’ review, criticized it, adding: “It’s the classic story of a highly effective and highly effective lobby group claiming its own good for taxpayer subsidies.”

Former Environment Secretary Rebecca Bow, who worked for Elms, also expressed concern about the government’s plans. She said: “We have to keep up with all the pressure to ensure we don’t go back on track with the amazing progress we’ve made in the environment. Nature is in free fall, we are Europe’s most draining country and we must tackle this; there is no conflict with food production – it just helps it.” For example, having healthy soil, clean water and pollinators.”

The government also faces opposition from the Church of England, which is mobilizing its bishops to block attempts to repeal environmental regulations and weaken Elms.

Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, who leads the bishops on environmental issues, said: “I will make presentations to the government, and I will advise these bishops in the House of Lords on how to act as well, so they are well informed.

“I believe there is a clear scriptural mandate to look after God’s creation. We’ll talk about aspects of the Chancellor’s statement last week – we have a duty to protect our nature in a broader sense, so it is our duty to speak out about policies that will not protect and enhance nature.”

“We value our nation’s great works of art, our historic buildings, and cherish them as if they were destroyed, you cannot recreate them. This also applies to our habitats and species.”

Leave a Comment