Some of the narratives we hear about ecological destruction are actually repeating some very old (and surprisingly racist) tropes
Read below my response to an article suggesting ploughing will end our civilisation, discussing thr history of the idea 👇
https://t.co/niZ5KXtKah
🚨 Proof of Labour’s disingenuous position on EU alignment 🧵
This High Court ruling exposes the contradiction at the heart of government policy.
While ministers talk up an SPS/vet agreement with the EU and claim it will solve our food problems, @DefraGovUK was simultaneously trying to rush through unlabelled “Frankenstein foods” (genetically engineered precision bred organisms) into the UK supply chain without proper safety testing or labelling.
@labourlewis@jayrayner1@DeborahMeaden
#SaveBritishFarming #Article39 #FoodStandards #RightToKnow
Where land was subsidied in the UK to support workers on the land and make living costs cheaper for workers in the cities, Andy Burnham is now talking about Land Value Tax. Not good
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Yeah ok, theres a reason progressive policies like this only exist in the bastions of socialism that are America, Singapore and Taiwan
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen ....which is only realised by land sales, and then (rightfully) taken by capital gains tax
Im not arguing for tax breaks for farmers, im arguing for cheap food production because im a socialist who understands food policy. You seem to just be a dogmatist
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Youre arguing workers who are free from exploitation should be subject to the same taxes as landlords because landlords are profiteering from a broken system. Dogmatic beyond reason and deeply regressive; hence why you have to point to Singapore and America as examples
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Workers ownership of the means of production? Imagine if there was such a thing!
Socialism has been achieved in European agriculture and the left love to attack it
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Again, baby out with the bathwater.
You say the ideal is stopping landlordism so propose to hit owner-occupiers in a way that could dispossess them. This is exactly the example we are talking about in Denmark- and its regressive
@FredVLarsen@IwanDoherty98 Yes exactly; i dont see that it solves a problem if theres no exploitation of workers or profit of unearned increment through rent. (Even on rented land a similar argument could be made - landlords used to pay tithes which were naturally paid for by the tenant)
@OliFletcher@IwanDoherty98 LPT on Danish farm land is around 0.1-0.2% of total tax revenue. It’s nothing in the grand scheme but 35 £/ha is a huge difference for farming especially with horrendous profit margin. If a persons primary taxable income comes from farming the land (crops) LPT should be relieved.
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen By less than a percent! Thus not measurably; and it hits rural workers who you appear to be selectively discounting, and it drives up the cost of food which is a point you keep ignoring. Believing something really hard doesnt make it true
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Well clearly this is not the case in Denmark and suggesting we model ourselves on America or Singapore-on-thames hardly fills me with confidence
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen Yes it is; its insignificant in terms of government revenue but has a measurable negative effect on workers and production (of food, which everyone needs, thus lowering living standards)
@IwanDoherty98@FredVLarsen LVT has only ever been used in the UK for social engineering - Lloyd George used it to crush the aristocracy which was good (but hardly Georgism). Today the same policy will just dispossess normal people that he put on the land, drive up food prices and make life worse for all