2. Tax Concessions to Pharmers.

Pharmers are not merely given tractor loads of subsidies and compensation payments for producing rotting, contaminated, drug infested, diseased, products. They are also given tax breaks/concessions to reduce their costs. Most people are so confused about the wide array of monies being given to pharmers they often refer to all payments as a subsidy e.g. they talk about pharmers’ fuel subsidies. However, the financial benefit that pharmers receive for cheap fuel is not a subsidy or compensation. It is a tax concession.

2.1: Abolition of Fuel Tax.

During the fuel tax rebellion by the environment-loving pharmers, margaret beckett pointed out that pharmers receive £250 million a year tax concessions for diesel which is supposedly only to be used on their farms.[1]; “For more than 200,000 privileged people in britain, cheap fuel is constantly on tap. The £250 million a year hand out ensures that the fuel used to power tractors and other vehicles on the land ­ but not officially on the open road ­ comes at a third of the cost of the diesel on the filling station forecourt. Red diesel ­ so called because it is tinged red ­ is delivered straight to the farm and attracts excise duty of only 31.3% a litre. This means it currently sells at around 23.9p a litre. Introduced after 1945 to bolster food production .. ”[2]; “For more than 200,000 privileged people in britain, cheap fuel is constantly on tap. Ironically farmers, the driving force behind many blockades and pickets, benefit from a huge diesel subsidy, which rarely attracts attention. The £250,000 a year hand out ensures that the fuel used to power tractors and other vehicles on the land ­ but not officially on the open road ­ comes at a third of the cost of the diesel on the filling station forecourt. Red diesel ­ so called because it is tinged red ­ is delivered straight to the farm and attracts excise duty of only 31.3 a litre. This means it currently sells at around 23.9 a litre. Introduced after 1945 to bolster food production, red diesel is now seen by some agricultural economists as an anomaly difficult to justify. Although the use of red diesel off the farm is prohibited, it has long been suspected that farmers pump it into four wheel drive vehicles for the road and use it to take animals to market. David handley, chairman of the pressure group Farmers for Action said, “We’re not subsidized on anything. I don’t know where this bloody nonsense has come from.”[3] Pharmers always protest they don’t receive a single penny for what they do - even whilst the security van drives up their drive-way to drop of their weekly compensation payments.

2.2: Abolition of Local Taxes i.e. Rates.

Pharmers don’t pay local taxes. They get all local services free of charge. When pharmers start complaining about urban burglars breaking into their pharm houses and the absence of policepeople walking up and down country lanes in the middle of the night to protect pharmers’ property, what they neglect to mention is that they don’t pay anything for the police because they don’t pay local taxes.

2.3: Abolition of Tractor Tax.

In the march 2001 budget speech gordon brown abolished the tax that pharmers have to pay for tractors.[4] So now they get tax free petrol for driving around in tax free tractors which look remarkably like 4x4 vehicles.

3. Write-Offs for Costs incurred by Pharmers.

3.1: Subsidies so that Pharmers can remember how many Animals they’ve got stashed on their Pharms - the Cattle Passport Scheme.

In brutland in the 1990s, pharmers, and pharmer dominated tory governments, did everything they could to prevent the european community from imposing a Cattle identification system on brutish pharmers. This was primarily because such a scheme would have put an end to their fraudulent claims for subsidies. After labour won the 1997 general election, the government forced the scheme onto Cattle pharmers but they were unable to force a similar scheme on Sheep pharmers. The government insisted that pharmers should pay for the implementation and running of the Cattle passport scheme. However, after the countryside march in 1998, mcblair capitulated to the national pharmers’ union and eventually decided the government would pay the bill for the policy, “A £7 per head “passport” plan for exported cattle is to be waived for two years to boost overseas sales.”[5]

3.2: Costs of Services Dropped.

Mcblair states that the £7 million planned charges on pharmers for the meat hygiene service would not be imposed. [6]

4. Subsidies for running the Pharming Industry.

This category covers monies the government gives to the pharming industry rather than to pharmers themselves - although obviously the purpose of this money is to create benefits for pharmers. It covers state funding given to national/local government departments for running and maintaining the ‘efficiency’ of the pharming industry and to quangoes.

4.1: The Department for Food and Rural Affairs.

This is the government department which oversees the running of the pharming industry - it was formerly known as the ministry for agriculture, fisheries, and food (the maffia). It runs a whitehall department and a wide range of research facilities across the country - all of which are designed to protect and enhance their interests.

4.2: The Veterinary Service.

Vets are responsible for taking care of the health of slave Animals. Although they are supposed to put the health of the Animals first, they are much more concerned about protecting pharmers’ profits rather than the health of slave Animals. Although vets have a policing role over the pharming industry most see their role not as ensuring that pharmers obey the law but offering pharmers professional protection should the public discover the scale of the mass criminality going on in the pharming industry. Vets dish out around 5,000 tonnes of drugs to the country’s pharmers, “More than 10,000 tonnes of antibiotics are used in the european union each year, roughly half of which ends up in animals.”[7] Vets are good at helping pharmers to maximize their profits from slave Animals but their regulatory functions should be removed entirely since they are just professional hired pharm hands. Vets are armchair pharmers with a degree.

The veterinary service is responsible for testing whether Animals have foot and mouth disease, “Half of a flock of 12,000 sheep were yesterday being tested for foot and mouth. The first stage of the mass screening saw 6,000 sheep rounded up and tested to see if the disease had contaminated the brecon beacons national park in wales. The blood samples will be fast tracked with the first results expected in seven days, the welsh assembly said. It is feared that huge areas of grazing including higher land could be affected after cases were recently confirmed near crickhowell and libanus in powys, bringing the welsh total to 106. The rest of the free-roaming flock will be rounded up on friday to be tested on saturday.”[8]

4.3: Trading Standards Officers.

4.4: Environmental Health.

Local authorities have a role in protecting ooman health in those places selling pharmers’ products.

4.5: Valuers.

These are often former pharmers who have the job of estimating the value of their friends’ Animals in order to assess their entitlement to compensation.

4.6: Slaughtermen.

4.6.1: Subsidies for Slaughtering Diseased Animals.

Governments not only pay pharmers for the slaughter of their diseased Animals, they also have to pay abattoirs and renderers to carry out the murders, “But the national audit office (nao) reveals that the ministry for agriculture fisheries and food (maff) has been seeking to cut the overall bill since the export ban in 1996 caused panic among beef consumers. Abattoirs were overpaid (Intervention Board payment to them per cow has dropped from £87 to £25), renderers were over paid (originally paid £105 per tonne now paid £83).”[9] The bill for the slaughter of Animals during the bse epidemic was bad enough but that for the foot and mouth epidemic is likely to be even bigger.

4.6.2: Pharmers’ helping their Friends to get a Share of the Compensation Loot.

If pharmers can’t get access to a particular subsidy themselves they make sure their friends might benefit. This was transparent during the foot and mouth epidemic when huntsmen were called in to help with the butchery of diseased Animals, “Trained hunt staff have been called in by the Ministry of Agriculture to slaughter livestock with foot and mouth disease within a week of agriculture ministers voting to ban hunting. David Jones, the huntsman of the David Davies hunt, which is based at Newtown, Powys, slaughtered 400 sheep and 70 cattle at Felindre, near Newtown, last Friday. Roy Savage, of the Teme Valley Foxhounds, and David Morgan, of the Radnor and West Hereford, slaughtered 250 sheep at Newcastle on Clun over the weekend. Other licensed slaughtermen working for hunt kennels, including George Hyatt of the South Devon, which includes part of Dartmoor in its hunt country, have been put on standby by the State Veterinary Service's regional control centres.”[10]; “Among those who have not been paid are hundreds of kennel slaughtermen provided by the Master of Foxhounds Association to kill stock for £18 per hour. They did the work in late March and early April, the association said yesterday. The British Veterinary Association, which provided more than 1,000 temporary veterinary inspectors at £250 per day, reported similar delays.”[11]; “In Cumbria, Hugo Busby, a master of foxhounds for the Portman Hunt in Dorset, who has been working as a slaughterman in Cumbria since April 2, said there had been complaints among slaughtermen. "I think a lot of people were getting frustrated," he said. "The cheques for teams who were working here seven weeks ago have only just started dribbling through. But they keep promising things are going to get better.” Both the British Veterinary Association and The Master of Foxhounds Association said they had made representations to Maff in an attempt to speed up the payment process. "We have had some complaints," said George Bowyer, of the MFHA. "But a lot of those were fuelled by rumours that there was something sinister in the delays and Maff wasn't going to pay. We have been reassured that they will. They are just overwhelmed by the paperwork at the moment and are struggling to clear the backlog."”[12]; “The National Farmers' Union has also been inundated with complaints of non-payment for work done by farmers and contractors. Hunt employees who helped with the emergency culls in Cumbria say they have not been paid since April.”[13]

4.7: Hunters provide Fallen Stock Service.

“Hunt staff have slaughtering skills and are licensed to use humane killers because of the service routinely provided by hunt kennels to remove "fallen stock", farm animals and horses that are wounded or elderly. This service, which took away 366,000 fallen stock in 1999, was estimated to save farmers £3.37 million a year by the Burns inquiry on hunting. ”[14] This service might disappear if hunting is ever banned, “Elliot Morley and Joyce Quin, both agriculture ministers, last week voted not to provide compensation to farmers if the fallen stock service provided by hunts was lost as the Hunting Bill passed through the Commons.”[15]

4.8: Pest Controllers.

Pharmers are also provided with financial help in eradicating Animals who either damage crops or attack slave Animals.

4.9: Storers.

4.9.1: Subsidies to Store, and Maintain, Food Mountains.

Governments often buy pharmers’ products (usually at a fixed, inflated, price) and then store them until they decide to sell or dispose of them, “Consider, too, the massive underpinning of farmers' incomes via the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Thanks to taxpayer subsidies, there have been milk lakes and butter mountains. And the taxpayer pays again to store the excess food and even to get rid of it.”[16] Pharmers couldn’t care less what governments do with these products after they’ve been paid for them. It’s up to governments to try and recoup some of their losses by selling what they have bought. Pharmers are given massive subsidies to produce pharming products and end up producing surpluses which governments store at considerable expense - another example of how pharming subsidies beget yet more pharming subsidies.

4.9.2: Foot and Mouth.

“Hundreds of thousands of lambs are to be bought, slaughtered and frozen by the government to cope with a huge surplus created by foot and mouth disease. The government will then mount a campaign to encourage people to eat them.”[17]; “The moves follow growing concern over the fate of about 2m "light" lambs born this spring, mostly in Devon, Wales and Cumbria. Normally these would have been sent abroad, but foot and mouth prompted a ban on exports. Instead Lord Whitty, the agriculture minister, will announce a £5.4m campaign promoting lamb as a healthy food.  As the campaign gets under way the slaughter will start and the meat will be put into cold stores, where it can be kept for up to seven months. Some supermarkets have agreed to help, with Tesco and Safeway agreeing to advertise the lamb. Ministers recognise, however, that it will be hard to persuade the public to eat 2m extra sheep so they are also preparing new sites where any unsold meat can be buried.”[18]

4.10: Traders.

4.10.1: Subsidies to Dump Pharm Surpluses on World Markets.

European Community.

There are times when governments are storing such massive quantities of pharm surpluses the only thing they can do with it all, to recoup some of the cost, is to dump it onto world markets at rock bottom prices. The financial losses suffered by governments is significant. But these losses are insignificant in comparison to the damage inflicted on poverty stricken people in third world countries producing similar products, “The e.e.c. pays out around £475 for every hectare of sugar beet grown. High levels of support and the colossally high quotas allowed our farmers meant that between 1973 and 1983 e.e.c. sugar production rose by 46%. The eec was thus producing one and a half times more sugar than it needed, and in 1983 it was costing £2 million a day to dump the surplus on the world market, where prices were considerably lower. At one time europe imported nearly all its sugar from abroad, particularly from jamaica, guyana, brazil and the caribbean. Under the lome convention (there are still sugar imports), but our dumping policies have reduced the price of sugar on the world market to such a low level that it doesn’t cover the cost of production even in those countries which are the lowest cost producers.”[19]

4.10.2: Subsidies to Dispose of Unwanted Surpluses.

Governments also fork out money for disposing of products if carnivores don’t want to buy the diseased rubbish that governments have purchased from pharmers.

European Community.

“At the same time, across Europe, demand for beef is down by 30% after scares over "mad cow" disease; in Germany it has collapsed by 60%. Faced with a glut of beef, the EU has devised a policy known as "purchase-for-destruction", under which surplus cattle are bought up, shot and burnt. It is, says the EU, cheaper than freezing and storing the meat for future sale. Already 112,000 cattle have been destroyed under the scheme, and Germany had agreed to get rid of 400,000 in the first half of this year.”[20]

4.11: Quangoes.

The brutish government forks out large sums of money to various quangoes to distribute subsidies to the pharming industry. Well, this is what it says in bageshot’s official manual of sound government. In reality, the pharmers in parliament who are stealing vast sums of public money, like to launder their hot money through a range of front organizations, fences as they’re called in the criminal underworld, so that when the money is returned to them in their capacity as pharmers, there’s not the slightest whiff of corruption.

The Meat and Livestock Commission.

See next section.

British Beef Exporters Group.

See below.

The Agricultural and Advisory Development Council.

“Farmers can collect “prescription” payments through the agricultural and advisory development council.”[21] How many people have heard of this quango?

The Countryside Agency.

This is run by ewen cameron. Its another quango to enable pharmer mps to give themselves more public money without making it appear as if they had stolen the money.

The Intervention Board.

The intervention board determines payments to abattoirs and renderers for murdering and disposing of corpses.[22]

Meat Hygiene Service.

See above.

The National Consumers Council.

When there’s a public outcry about the shit that pharmers are selling, the pharmer-loving members of the news’ media invite representatives from the consumers’ council to come along and make a statement pretending to protect consumers’ interests. During the bse crisis, the national consumer council wasn’t exactly at the forefront of demonstrations against governments’ bse policies or the massed ranks of pharmers spreading their brain rotting disease around the country. For example, it never told consumers that all bseef is infected by bse not just specified offals. It simply went along with government policy even though this meant extolling the bizarre idea that bse was a disease that was able to get from the stomach to the brain without being absorbed in blood - the reason for this bizarre hypothesis being to deter demands for the banning not merely of offals but meat itself. So why was the national consumers’ council so appallingly servile? Perhaps because it was set up, and is funded, by the maffia as a front organization to head off public anger about diseased food .. “the national consumers’ council (ncc), a government-sponsored body under the wing of maff ..”[23]

4.12: International Quangoes.

The Veterinary International Co-operation on Harmonization.

“Now as a result of an agreement reached last year between veterinary regulators from the eu, us, and japan, who are members of a little known body called veterinary international co-operation on harmonization (vich) ..”[24]

5. The Subsidies given to Quangoes to Increase the Consumption of Contaminated Pharming Products.

Governments provide subsidies not only to pharmers and the organizations running the pharming industry but to a range of organizations responsible for boosting the consumption of corpse and dairy products.

5.1: Subsidies to the Meat and Livestock Commission for Meat Propaganda.

The brutish government funds the meat and livestock commission, a quango, to advertise the virtues of eating multiply-diseased, hormonally-enhanced, antibiotic-laced, drug-infestec, pesticide-ridden, meat. In other words, it finances the meat industry’s bills for political propaganda. The mundi club has written to the labour government asking when it is going to put similar sums of money towards a Vegun Commission.

May 1995.

“The Meat and Livestock Commission have a £20 million advertising budget. .. in the present climate of consumer anxiety about the health of red meat. The ‘recipe for love’ commercials have a budget of £7m. Ned Sherrin who was brought up on farms said that slaughtering animals is part of the rich tapestry of life.”[25]

January 1998.

“A £2 million campaign aimed at encouraging beefeaters to buy british was launched yesterday. The drive follows evidence that nearly 75% of consumers prefer to eat home-grown beef. Organized by the meat and livestock commission the goal is to convert people to british beef and put pressure on importers to shop at home”[26]; “In January 1998 a £2m marketing campaign was launched to attempt to restore confidence in British beef.”[27]

June 1998: Government Launches Eat Lamb adverts after Scientist Warns of Bse in Lamb.

What an amazing coincidence. Two days after almond’s statement about the threat posed by bse in Sheep, the government’s Meat and Livestock quango advertizes Lamb on tv. Paid for, in part, by bse-cjd victims of course.

March 2001: Government to Launch Campaign to Persuade Bipeds to Eat Food.

“The government is planning a multimillion pound advertising campaign to combat the disastrous image of Britain's food industry in the wake of the foot and mouth outbreak.”[28]

July 2001: Government to Launch Campaign to Persuade Bipeds to eat Bse-Infected Lamb.

The ban on the export of Animals because of the foot and mouth epidemic means there is a surplus of slave Animals in the country which need to dealt with. The solution, of course, is to slaughter them and encourage the public to consume the surplus, “The moves follow growing concern over the fate of about 2m "light" lambs born this spring, mostly in Devon, Wales and Cumbria. Normally these would have been sent abroad, but foot and mouth prompted a ban on exports. Instead Lord Whitty, the agriculture minister, will announce a £5.4m campaign promoting lamb as a healthy food.  As the campaign gets under way the slaughter will start and the meat will be put into cold stores, where it can be kept for up to seven months. Some supermarkets have agreed to help, with Tesco and Safeway agreeing to advertise the lamb. Ministers recognise, however, that it will be hard to persuade the public to eat 2m extra sheep so they are also preparing new sites where any unsold meat can be buried.”[29]; “The government is considering whether to pay £2.7m toward the campaign, which would match funds from the meat and livestock commission and double funds available to boost lamb sales at home following the ban on exports because of foot and mouth.”[30]; “The meat and livestock commission said it was planning to continue to use Harry Enfield's "nice but dim" character to promote lamb in the media. A spokesman said: "We await with interest the final results of the research (into how many Sheep are afflicted with bse) but until then we propose to say sheep meat is safe to eat. Because of the export ban, there will be a lot of nice lamb around in September. We hope the British public will respond and perhaps eat a little bit more."”[31] So, even though scientists have been warning for years that Sheep are infected with bse, the meat and livestock commission have taken it on themselves to pretend that the disease doesn’t exist. It surely is disgusting that corporate comics like harry enfield should sell themselves for such a project. It typifies the domestication of professional comics in brutland.

5.2: The British Beef Exporters Group.

The British Beef Exporters Group ...”[32]

5.3: The Health Education Authority.

Some quangoes set up to protect ooman health are committed to carnivorism, "The health education authority yesterday endorsed eating red meat in a report published with and financed by the meat and livestock commission."[33]

5.4: Freebies from Food Mountains.

.. “to the (e.c.) butter surplus was similarly irresponsible: the cut price xmas butter scheme helped to offload some 40,000 tons of surplus - or, put more bluntly, it encouraged people, especially the poor and old, whose diets are in any case less than ideal, to harm their health.”[34]

5.5: Special Government Campaigns.

Mcblair has been prominent in trying to recover markets for brutish bseef after the bse epidemic. He organized a series of sales teams, centred on 'ambassadors' in each of the countries that accepts uk beef, to try and boost the consumption of bse. [35]

5.6: Catering Concessions.

Government funds are provided for the sale of diseased meat commodities to schools and hospitals, "Government subsidies connive in manipulating our diet - to eat fat. For example, an 80% subsidy is given to caterers of school meals and hospitals if they use full fat dairy products in their cooking, but is not given if the caterers use skimmed milk and low fat products."[36]

6: Subsidies to Pharming Related Industries.

The pharming industry depends on products from a huge number of industries. The world’s industrial matrix provides it with the commodities and services it needs e.g. the water industry provides pharmers with fresh water and disposes of waste water; the timber industry provides pharmers with wood products, etc. Under normal free market conditions, the industries would charge pharmers as much as they could. However, there are a number of industries providing products for the pharming industry which are subsidized by governments. They are able to sell their products to pharmers for less than the market rate. In effect, these industries are providing an indirect subsidy to the pharming industry. Pharmers receive a massive scale of secondary, or indirect, subsidies from their support industries e.g. providing cheap public grazing land, cheap crops for livestock feed, cheap water supplies; cheap fencing; etc. etc.

6.1: Cheap Grains.

The practice of feeding grains to cattle started in the 1930s. “American grain surpluses, largely fuelled by government price supports, provided inexpensive food for livestock and made cattle feeding a standard practice in the beef industry.”[37]

6.2: Pastureland in the United States of America.

The american government allows pharmers to graze their slave Animals on publicly owned land and to do so at below market rates which substantially reduces pharmers’ costs, "Although it is difficult to peg all the costs of public lands grazing, experts estimate that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management lose over $100 million a year on their grazing programmes. (When hidden costs are taken into consideration) the subsidy to the livestock industry grows to guargantuan proportions - very roughly $2 billion annually."[38]

6.3: Dams and Water Irrigation.

Many governments around the world fund the construction of dams to provide drinking water for slave Animals. They also fund water irrigation projects to produce Animal feed. Without subsidies for irrigated water, for example, farmers in the western United States would be less likely to grow rice and other water-intensive crops in arid regions. It has been argued that, “Subsidies in US agriculture are just as whimsical: one government agency subsidizes irrigation for crops that another agency pays farmers not to grow at all.”[39]

6.4: The American Timber Industry.

“Waste in the federal timber sale program is at an all time high, even as logging levels have hit a record low, according to a new report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national budget watchdog organization. The report found that the federal timber program cost taxpayers a staggering $407 million dollars more than it received for its timber sales in 1998. Using the most recent government data and agency figures obtained though Freedom of Information Act requests, the report found that the U.S. Forest Service is dramatically underestimating the timber program's financial losses.”[40]

6.5: Drainage and Flood Defence.

In brutland, most flood defence systems have been installed in rural areas for the benefit of pharmers rather than in urban areas to protect urban dwellers. Flood defence systems are so closely aligned to the needs of the pharming industry that departmental responsibilities for preventing floods lay with the maffia rather than the environment agency or the water industry, “Flood defences will get an extra £11.6 million following the autumn deluge, it was revealed yesterday. Countryside minister elliot morley announced the cash injection when he visited one of the worst hit areas, selby in east yorkshire.”[41]

6.6: Rural Businesses.

Mcblair has been funding rural businesses because he’s worried that if there are no thriving businesses and industries in rural areas then it will be more difficult to provide services which pharmers need. It will also mean that fewer people will want to live in rural areas so there will be fewer people willing to do casual work for pharmers.

12.4.2001

“Environment minister michael meacher yesterday announced a £15million aid package for rural businesses.”[42]

8.5.2001

“Country firms devastated by the foot and mouth crisis are to be given an extra £24million. Michael meacher said grants of up to £15,000 would be targeted at up to 10,000 tourist and other ventures in the worst hit areas “to ensure viable businesses survive to help recovery.”[43]

7: Import Levies.

In the past one of the biggest financial benefits which governments could provide for pharmers were levies on the importation of pharm goods. As the ideology of a global free market has spread around the world this form of financial protection for domestic pharmers became much less popular. But, around the world, protectionism is still the dominant factor in the agricultural industries. Agriculture is the only industry which is not subject to rules of free trade agreed by the world terrorist organization. What this shows of course is that the problems caused by the pharming are caused by national factors, the domestication process, rather than globalization.

8: Write-Offs for the Damage Caused by Pharmers.

Pharmers cause a huge amount of damage to people, property, and the environment, but it is governments which end up paying for any repairs. These are substantial financial write-offs for pharmers and the pharming industry. If governments did not compensate people for the damage caused by pharmers, many victims might sue pharmers, or the pharming industry, which is something governments want to discourage.

8.1: Damage to Ooman Health.

Food Poisoning.

In brutland, vast numbers of people are forced to endure bouts of food poisoning which puts a huge burden on the national health service. Pharmers do not have to compensate people for these illnesses, the days lost off work, or for medical treatment. These are a massive cost write-offs.

Obesity.

Vast numbers of people are obese because of the fatty rubbish produced by the pharming industry. “Over a third of all adults in britain are overweight. The culprits: fat and sugar. ”[44] Obesity causes a wide range of health problems which puts a huge burden on the finances of the national health service.

Heart Attacks.

“The death rates from coronary heart diseases in the u.k. are among the highest of anywhere in the world. Again, excess consumption of fats and sugar has much to do with it. They also contribute, when combined with a lack of dietary fibre, to the high incidence of both diabetes and gall-bladder disease. .. too much fat and salt increase the incidence of strokes. In short, many of the major diseases of today are a direct consequence of eating too much fat, sugar, and too little fibre. Over 170,000 people die of heart disease in britain every year; over 70,000 are afflicted by strokes; and over 10,000 people die of bowel and colon cancers. So far the government’s reactions to the national advisory committee on nutritional education and the committee on medical aspect of food policy reports have been pitiful.”[45]

Cancer.

The pharming industry is responsible for the plague of cancer deaths in the over-industrialized world - greens blame cancers on the chemical industry because they support the pharming industry.

8.2: Water Pollution.

In the over-industrialized world the pharming industry is the biggest polluter of waterways. But it’s taxpayers who pay to clean up this pollution not pharmers. This is another major cost write-off for pharmers, “In Britain, the taxpayer forks out at least £350 per year in agricultural subsidies, and stumps up a further £200 in increased food prices (plus environmental costs, such as pollution of water supplies through pesticide and fertiliser wash-off, and degraded landscapes).”[46]; “The RSPB has long been an advocate of the need to reduce the environmental impact of pesticides and the £100m annual costs to the taxpayer of removing them from drinking water.”[47]

8.3: Damage to Property and Life through Pharmer-induced Floods.

Pharmers are given vast subsidies for installing drainage systems on their properties and they also receive compensation for flood damage to their property - even though they are partly responsible for the floods. Non-pharming flood victims are not compensated for the damage caused by pharmer-induced floods. In brutland during the autumn 2000 floods, 11,500 homes and business were ruined by pharmers’ manure infested floods. These people received virtually no financial assistance from the government. The pharming industry should have been forced to cough up the costs for this damage but it wasn’t. This is another cost write-off for pharmers. Some local authorities increased their local precept to pay for the damage caused by pharmer-induced floods - which means that people whose properties have been damaged by shit-riddled, flood waters caused by pharmer induced floods and pharmer induced global burning are having to pay for the damage being done to pharmers’ houses by these floods - even though pharmers don’t pay any local taxes!

8.4: Summary.

Tam Dougan.

Dougan complains about the huge invisible costs of the so-called cheap food produced by conventional pharming, “The cost of clean up of the environment is not paid by the farmer, it’s paid for by the public, for water charges, for cleaning up the water supply, and eventually, for those chemicals that escape the net again by the public through the nhs to alleviate the health problems of the consumers that some of these practices create. If a life cycle analysis was done on all environmental effects such as pollution of the water supply, hormones in meat, with resultant fertility and health problems in humans from both, then our food would look very expensive.”[48] What he is ignoring here is the more pertinent fact that pharmers are imposing costs primarily on urban people.

Brutland.

“Last year, brutland spent £3 billion subsidizing intensive farming and the same amount clearing up after bse and agricultural pollution.”[49]

9: The Social Subsidies given to Pharming Communities.

Governments give pharmers a wide range of subsidies and pharmers also benefit from the substantial subsidies given to the pharming industry, pharming quangoes, and pharming related industries. However, pharmers also benefit from massive subsidies given to them as rural residents. The landowning pharming elite are the prime beneficiaries of the massive, and wide ranging, subsidies given to rural areas. Once again, urban people are subsidizing a wide range of rural services for pharmers. Paradoxically, this is not a left-right political battle in which the left supports urban people whilst the right supports ruralites. As regards those on the left of the political spectrum: the more extreme they are, the greater is their commitment to universal benefits i.e. the belief that all people should share the same benefits. What this is taken to mean is that people living in rural areas should pay the same prices for gas, electricity, and other services, as urban people - no matter how exorbitant the cost of supplying such services may be. Left wingers, from trade unionists to members of the fourth international, are as adamant as the rural aristocracy that everyone should pay the same for the same services, even though this imposes a colossal burden upon urban people who have to pay for this policy. In fact, if anything, left wingers are far bigger supporters of equal benefits for all citizens than the rural aristocracy which, in the past, has been contemptuous of its employees’ living conditions and health. Urban people are being forced into a second rate existence for the sake of upholding lefties universalist ideology. They are forever doomed to fork out vast subsidies for the rural elite in the name of universal equality.[50]

The first section below explores the provision of services to rural and urban people in brutland during the days of nationalized industries. It reveals that during the days when nationalized industries dominated the brutish economy, pharmers enjoyed extensive social subsidies because of their status as rural residents. The second section explores what has happened since the privatization of these services. Although, theoretically, privatization was a big threat to pharmers’ social subsidies, the pharmer-politicians in parliament saw the danger and prevented the full force of market competition coming into effect. They have been able to prevent rural areas from losing out as a result of privatization. Once again market forces are supposed to be the dominant factor of economic life and yet as soon as these forces come up against the material interests of the landowning elite they dismissed as irrelevant. Once again this reveals that the main political problem has nothing to do with globalization, a theory being touted by a green who spends most of his life demanding localism whilst flying around the globe at 30,000 feet, but with domestication.

9.1: Nationalized Industries forced Urbanites to Subsidize the Rural Pharming Elite.

9.1.1: Gas.

Firstly, a short analysis of the cost of gas provision. Let’s assume that in a country there are only a few sources of gas supply - either because there are only a few gas fields or because gas supply comes from abroad via one main gas pipeline. There are two realities about the economics of gas supply which apply to any and all countries around the world. Firstly, the further away that consumers are from a gasfield, the greater the costs of distributing the gas. Secondly, the greater the concentration of gas users, the cheaper it is to supply them with gas. The laying of gas pipelines to people dispersed across huge rural areas is far more expensive than it is laying down pipelines for people living closely together in urban areas. It is far cheaper to provide gas to towns and cities that are far away from sources of gas than it is to supply gas to rural areas that are close to gasfields.

Given these economic facts of life it is surprising that, in the past, the brutish nationalized gas industry installed gas to everyone at virtually the same price. If people living in rural areas, including pharmers, had to pay the full cost of their gas supplies it would have been too expensive for many rural residents. If the people living in urban areas paid the real economic cost of gas, the price would drop dramatically. In effect, the urban poor subsidized the rural rich.

9.1.2: Electricity.

Although there are far more sources of electricity than there are sources of gas, the arguments outlined above for the supply of gas also apply to the supply of electricity. Once again, the nationalized electricity industry ensured that ruralites paid the same price for electricity as urbanites even though the cost of supplying electricity to large numbers of people living in urban areas was far lower than supplying it to people dispersed through rural areas. The same is happening around the world .. “most developing country governments heavily subsidize the extension of grid electricity to rural areas, as well as the installation of diesel water pumps.”[51]

9.1.3: Water Supply.

The supply of service realities highlighted above also apply to water. It is far more expensive piping water to a large number of tiny villages and hamlets dispersed over a wide area than it is to supply high density urban areas. The nationalized water industry did not try, however, to ensure the same prices were paid across the country. The country was divided into regional areas and everyone within a region paid the same amount for water no matter whether they lived in an urban, or rural, area. All this reduced the subsidies that urban people had to pay to rural people, the regional water subsidies which urbanites were forced to provide for ruralites was probably the biggest of all the subsidies.

9.1.4: Sewage Disposal.

During the time of nationalized water industry, urbanites subsidized rural people for the provision of sewage disposal.

9.1.5: Telephones.

It is far cheaper to provide telephone services to people in urban areas than to those in rural areas. The laying of cables or transmission lines is far more expensive in rural areas than in urban areas. And yet, in brutland, the nationalized telephone industry ensured that everyone paid the same. Urban people also ended up subsidizing this service for rural people and pharmers.

9.1.6: Restoring Services after Storms.

In brutland, storms, floods, snowfalls, etc cause far more damage to electricity, gas, water, telephone, services, etc, in rural areas than they do in urban areas. This is because in urban areas most of these services are buried underground or protected from the elements by buildings and the heat island effect whereas they are much more exposed to the elements in rural areas. The costs of repairing these services is far greater in rural areas than in urban areas. The costs of repairing damaged services doesn’t fall on those affected but on all consumers - most of whom live in urban areas. The question has to be asked, ‘If rural people want to live in rural areas where they will be far more affected by natural disasters why should they be financially baled out by urban consumers?

9.1.7: Public Transport: Bus/Train Services.

In brutland after the second world war, public transport was either under the control of nationalized industries or local authorities. Public transport in urban areas was profitable but it wasn’t in rural services. Both nationalized and localized public transport authorities ended up using profits from urban areas to provide huge subsidies for rural services.

9.1.8: Postal Services.

In brutland, the nationalized postal service ensured, as it still does, that charges for delivering letters is the same throughout the country. The price is the same whether a letter is sent to people living in the next street or at the other end of the country. The fact is, however, that it costs far less to deliver a letter between urban areas than it does between rural areas. It costs far less to deliver a letter between two towns at opposite end of the country than between adjacent rural areas. The national pricing system for postal delivery requires urban people to subsidize those living in rural areas. If urbanites didn’t have to keep subsidizing rural spongers, the cost of sending letters between urban areas would drop dramatically.

9.1.9: Housing.

The tories also privatized, in effect, the house construction industry by severely restricting local authorities’ options for building cheap, affordable council housing. The construction of council housing still continues but at a very low level. House construction is confronted by the same economic realities as the provision of all the services outlined above - it’s far cheaper to build houses in urban areas than it is to build them in rural areas. The land may be much more expensive to buy in urban areas than it is in rural areas but even if construction costs were exactly the same in both urban and rural areas, the overall cost of houses would still be far higher in rural areas than in urban areas because of the costs of connecting services to the houses. The costs of connecting houses to the gas, electricity, water, sewage disposal, telephone, grids - not to forget the road network - is far higher in rural areas than in urban areas. If people want to build cheap affordable houses then they have to be built in urban areas. Building houses in rural areas almost automatically means that houses cannot be cheap or affordable. The only way that rural houses can be made cheaply is if urban people once again subsidize rural housing - and given the condition of many urban housing estates asking the urban poor to subsidize the urban poor is immoral.

9.2: The Effect of Privatization on Rural Subsidies.

9.2.1: Gas, Electricity, Water Supply, Sewage Disposal, and Telephones.

In brutland, the privatization of the gas, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal, and telephone, industries has not led to increasing price differentials between rural and urban areas. This is primarily because most of these industries’ infrastructure had been laid down prior to privatization so that by the time the new owners took over, the costs of running the system were fairly equal. And, because parliament is controlled by the landowning elite promoting the domestication ideology, there were no demands from urban livestock that ruralites should pay their way. So, why disturb a system that was functioning profitably?

The telephone industry has progressed since privatization and is producing new services, primarily the internet. It can no longer avoid having to confront the problems raised by the rural/urban divide. The fact is that providing internet services to urban areas is relatively cheap and easy whereas providing it to rural areas is grossly uneconomic. The labour government, with strong universalist tendencies, is doing its best to try and ensure that urban people are forced to pay for the internet service provision of rural people. It has adopted a twin track approach. Firstly, “Labour's rural recipe (for developing the countryside) depends on more tourism, the internet and other new technologies, but that plan depends on bullying communication companies into spending some of their profits on uneconomic social ends.”[52] Secondly, old fashioned rural subsidies, “The government yesterday pledged £30 million to help extend broadband coverage in rural areas.”[53] This sum of money could get far more people on-line if it was spent in urban areas than if it is spent in rural areas.

9.2.2: Bus Services.

Since the privatization of buses and railways, public transport to rural areas has declined dramatically for the obvious reason that it is wholly unprofitable. Rural public transport is prohibitively expensive and can never make a profit. Demand is low for a number of reasons. Firstly, only small numbers of people live in the countryside; secondly, the dispersal of the population in rural areas; and, thirdly, many ruralites are rich and thus use cars, “Many people, particularly the old, the sick and the unemployed, do not have access to a car, with 22% of rural households not owning a car, and 14% of rural adults having no driving license.”[54] There will never be enough passengers to make a rural bus service profitable. In order to pick up enough passengers, buses have to make so many detours to surrounding villages that journeys take far longer than passengers are willing to tolerate.

The privatization of bus services led to the collapse of rural services leaving the poorest rural dwellers trapped in their villages. It is quite natural for them to demand they should be given subsidized public transport - despite the fact that once again it would be urbanites who would have to provide these subsidies. It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that they wouldn’t have been able to afford to live in rural areas if it wasn’t for the substantial subsidies they received to make this possible. If they hadn’t been given so many subsidized services to move there in the first place they wouldn’t now be making absurd demands for ever more subsidies. Of all the subsidy begets subsidy examples highlighted in this work, the biggest is people living in rural areas. Once people start living in rural areas they need multiple subsidies. They can’t survive on a single subsidy. Why should people who want to live in rural areas have the right to insist that urban people should pay for their choices?

Throughout the 1990s, the labour party denounced the waste of subsidies being given to ailing industries, usually those in urban and inner city areas. However, since its election, the labour government has been providing vast subsidies to the rich living in rural areas. In 1998, “The biggest single boost for public transport was for rural areas where existing grants of around £1 million were increased to £50 million.”[55] In january 2000, “Ministers will defend their rural record by pointing out that the Government has put £170m into improving rural transport and £40m into the School Support Fund which helps rural schools.”[56] At the end of 2000, the government was even offering rural people free taxis, “A free taxi will be on offer for every village in the country under the government’s latest plan to beat rural poverty. Deputy premier john prescott is to give parish councils millions of pounds to buy 8-seater” people carriers” like tony blair’s ford galaxy. Any local resident could then pick up the keys and take the neighbours on a shopping trip. The plan will be part of prescott’s rural white paper later this month.”[57] It’s impossible to imagine that thatcher would have done anything similar for working class people living on outer estates or inner city areas throughout the country - the tories would have found the whole idea utterly outrageous and typical of labour’s nannying state. The labour government’s use of taxis to buy the votes of rural people conjures up al fayed’s description of tory mps who could be bought like taxis.

9.2.3: Postal Services.

Most of the privatizations of nationalized industries carried out by the 1979-97 tory governments were popular amongst the middle classes who bought up as many cheap shares as they could and made huge windfall profits. One of the anomalies in this privatization revolution was the tories’ failure to privatize the post office. It wasn’t as if this proposal was any more unpopular than other privatizations. But this time the opponents of privatization were not the urban poor but tory pharming mps representing the interests of the rural middle classes. They realized the privatization of the post office would mean rises in the costs of delivering letters in rural areas and the closure of huge numbers of rural post offices. If people living in rural areas had to pay the full market cost of their postal services/post offices many would not be able to afford them. The fact that the cost of delivering letters between urban areas would drop dramatically was of no interest to them.

Once again, the labour government has been bending over backwards to ensure cheap i.e. highly subsidized, postal services for rural people. This will be a considerable benefit to the landowning pharming elite. If it encourages local people to stay where they are, they could be used as cheap seasonal labour by local pharmers, “Ministers last night moved to rescue their plans for a post office based bank by offering up to £275m of taxpayers' money towards its running costs. The universal bank is to offer accounts, branded "clear", to some 5m people who do not have access to a bank account but will need one when social security payments are automated in 2004.”[58]

9.2.4: Housing.

The labour government is also making moves to provide affordable housing for the rural poor, “Second home owners could have their council tax bills doubled under government plans to help country areas. The £150 million raised would go towards cheap rural housing.”[59] There’s no such thing as cheap rural housing - it costs far more to house people in rural areas than it does to house them in urban areas even if house prices are lower in rural areas. The costs of sewage disposal, water, gas, electricity, transportation, etc, are all much higher in rural areas than urban areas.

9.2.5: Conclusions: Privatized Industries should force the Ruralites to Pay their Way.

A number of commentators are opposed to the subsidies which urban people are being forced to give to rural folk, “Compared to many, the country folk have got it easy. They are subsidized up to their rosy cheeks. Everything from a first-class stamp to electricity is massively over-priced because the townies are easing the burden for remote rural communities.”[60]; “In the british countryside 1% of the population owns 50% of the land. Last year 84% of the £3.4 billion earned by pharmers was in the form of subsidies. Every british family subsidies agriculture by £4 a week and if we stopped doing so our supermarket bills would plummet along with our taxes. As well as their incomes, we subsidize their electricity, water, postal service, school transport and their roads. The march is a huge propaganda smokescreen financed by rich aristocrats .. who want to maintain the feudal system that dominates their work and leisure practices.”[61]

The above quotes may sound like cheap, left wing propaganda. What is so surprising is that such views are so unpopular amongst universalist lefties. Most left wingers whether conservative, reformist, or revolutionary, support the universal provision of services whether this means the same services for the same price or equal child benefit for rich and poor alike. There are no lefties willing to highlight the enormous scale of the subsidies which urban people are being forced to provide for rural people for the sake of this universalist dogma. In the past, many people may have found life tolerable enough in urban areas to overlook the subsidies they were being forced to pay out for rural people. During the labour government’s time in office the flow of subsidies from urbanites to ruralites has become a flood. As a consequence conditions in many urban-inner city areas have deteriorated or at best remained static. As more and more funds are being pumped into rural areas one wonders how long it is going to be before the urban livestock snap out of their political stupor.

9.3: State Services.

The social subsidies that urban people are being forced to give to the rural rich are not confined to those in the private sector but also includes state services.

9.3.1: Rural Schools

Rural schools are uneconomic to run and are being closed down. And yet, after protests, attempts are being made to keep them open. This can be done only through subsidies. The labour government continues to pour money into rural schools whilst allowing many urban schools to fall into disrepair, “Government minister estelle morris yesterday pledged £80 million a year to fund small schools. The cash will help rural schools band together to pay for teachers and joint lessons.”[62]; “Ministers will defend their rural record by pointing out that the Government has put .. £40m into the School Support Fund which helps rural schools.”[63]

The consequence of these subsidies is that the urban poor are paying for the privileges enjoyed by the children of the rural rich. Urban people are being forced to send their children to huge urban schools which have serious bullying, drug, and sex, problems whilst many rural people are able to send their children to small, village schools which aren’t afflicted by such social problems. It has to be suggested the reason that urban schools are so poor in this country is because so many resources are being funnelled to rural schools for the benefit of a minority of rich children.

9.3.2: Social Services.

The costs of providing social services to people in rural areas is higher than the cost of such services in urban areas. The government continues to subsidize social services for people living in rural areas, “Children in hard hit rural areas will benefit from a £40 million fund set up by the government. The three year scheme will be targeted at 16 of the worst-off areas and aims to help 20,000 children by 2004. Health minister yvette cooper said, “Families on low incomes in rural areas face equally difficult problems and need different kinds of help and support.” The £40 million will provide extra child-care facilities, mobile health clinics and transportation to and from antenatal clinics.””[64]

9.3.3: Propping up Rural Ghost Towns.

The government continues to prop up rural ghost towns whilst leaving urban areas in a nightmare state, “Thirty market towns in counties hit by foot and mouth were among 43 nationwide to be given around £1 million in aid. Announcing the package, john prescott said it would transform the towns into vibrant hubs of rural communities.”[65]