By Guy Smith
There was an old adage that did the rounds, that UK agriculture was better off under a Labour government than a Tory one. Like many pearls of wisdom, it didn’t stand up to much analysis, but it wasn’t glaringly wrong either.
It likely stemmed from the post-war socialist Atlee government which sought to support agriculture, contrasting with the ‘laissez-faire’ neglect of pre-war governments dominated by the Conservatives. The fact is, since the 1940s, there hasn’t been a pattern to suggest which party farmers do best under. Furthermore, it’s primarily markets that dictate our fortunes, not politics.
This is demonstrated by the present, where we have strong prices in the buoyant dairy and beef sectors contrasting with poor prices for depressed arable crops. The point is, it’s all happening under the same Labour administration; it’s a coincidence.
This leads to another adage – ‘up horn, down corn’, or vice-versa. This is well reflected in the latest Total Income from Farming Figures, which show a 5% increase in the livestock sector during the past 2-3 years, mirrored by a 5% decline in arable.
What isn’t clear is whether you always get a see-saw effect of one up, one down; there have been several periods post-war where farm gate price for most commodities were either collectively depressed or buoyant.
What the TIFF figures chart as a trend, is a decline in income from government support – 11% in 2020 to 8% in 2024. Furthermore, this 3% drop masks that you now have to spend money to access this support, whereas under the hectare-based schemes of the CAP, you didn’t.
It’s in relation to support that the importance of government policy comes to the fore, but again, history shows little difference between right or left wing governments. Before we joined the EU, the price support scheme was similarly funded by Atlee and Wilson in the red corner, and Churchill, MacMillan and Heath in the blue.
Once we were under the auspices of the CAP, the complexion of the House of Commons had limited effect on the politics of Brussels. But now, post-Brexit, the ball is back in the Westminster court.
Since 2016 there hasn’t been much difference between the two main parties when it comes to agricultural policy. The Tories put down the bare bones 6-7 years ago, and the Starmer regime has largely stayed on-script. The question is, will we see divergence between the agricultural policies of the main parties? Equally, if the likes of Reform or the Lib-dems hold some sort of coalition sway, then should farmers be examining their ag-manifestos too?
Ag-policy is essentially a three-legged stool which dictates support, trade protection and regulation. If just one of these doesn’t sit comfortably then things get wobbly. If the cost of the regulatory burden on agriculture is out of kilter with trade protection or the level of support, then UK agriculture will be uncompetitive on the world stage. So the question for the main parties is, how to approach these three areas?
This takes us back to the 1930s where government policy did influence the fortunes of farming and led to imports of cheap foreign produce. So I’ll leave you with this cartoon from 1933 where the Minister of Agriculture enrages his farmer constituent by saying rather than protecting farmers from cheap imports, he’s going to protect them from themselves. 100 years later, will history repeat itself?
This article was taken from the latest issue of CPM. Read the article in full here.
For more articles like this, subscribe here.
Sign up for Crop Production Magazine’s FREE e-newsletter here.
