2.5: The Agricultural Subsidies enjoyed by the Rural Elite.

One of the main ways in which rural interests exploit urban people is by obtaining huge subsidies for pharming. In virtually every country around the world, the rural elite obtains huge state subsidies not for boosting agricultural production but for boosting agricultural profits. Even in countries such as america where there is an all-pervasive, anti-government ideology of free enterprise and self reliance, the agricultural sector continues to receive colossal state subsidies. In america, pharmers receive huge welfare benefit payment and are probably the biggest spongers in the country. In brutland, pharmers have been given huge subsidies for so long they regard subsidies as an inalienable right. Brutish pharmers expect compensation whenever anything goes wrong: from 1988 onwards when bse was spreading through brutish herds, pharmers refused to take their public health duties seriously until they were fully compensated for the loss of their Animals. There is no other sector of society which expects financial rewards for not spreading disease throughout the country. Any other group or individual threatening not to spread disease unless they were given large sums of money would be called blackmailers. From the summer of 1997 onwards as the value of the pound began to rise, pharmers demanded compensation for the losses they suffered when exporting livestock. There is no other industry in the country which even imagines it has a right to compensation for currency fluctuations. There is no other industry in brutland, as in most other countries around the world, which receives the same level of subsidies and no other industry which believes it has the right to financial compensation whenever it loses money.

2.5.1: Subsidies for Meat Production.

Brazil.

"Some (landowners) have benefitted enormously from (agricultural) subsidies: 469 farms in the Amazon, for example, cost the country an astonishing $4.8 billion while producing next to nothing." [1]

Brutland.

Meat Subsidies to Tory Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

"In brutland, according to the ministry of agriculture, the subsidies for beef, Sheep, Pig and milk products in 1994 totalled £1.2 billion." [2] ; "Last year, brutland spent £3 billion subsidizing intensive farming and the same amount clearing up after bse and agricultural pollution." [3] In brutland, the ministry for agriculture food and fisheries, maff, is often referred to as 'more aid for farmers fast'.

Meat Subsidies to Extremely Wealthy Tory Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

"Four of brutland's wealthiest landowners pocketed more than £1 million each in euro subsidies last year, it was revealed yesterday. Another 16 fat cat pharmers each got more than £500,000 under the common agricultural policy, the government said." [4] ; "This annual handout (the Integrated Administration and Control System) amounting to £1.5 billion a year, was introduced in 1992. In Britain .. 80% of the money annually went to 20% of the largest landowners. Last year there were at least 11 IACS millionaires and an estimated 50,000 farmers received IACS payments over £50,000." [5]

Subsidies to Brutish Sheep Pharmers.

"Some 41%, or £521 million out of £1.2 billion in 1993/4, of the income of Sheep farmers in brutland comes from .. taxation." [6]

The Cost per Household of the Subsidies given to Tory Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

"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." [7] ; "According to the tink tank paper on 'Reducing Agricultural Subsidies', produced by a group of experts in the cabinet office, the british taxpayer is subsidizing british farmers to the tune of £20,000 every year. In 1980 the institute for fiscal studies calculated that u.k. consumers were paying £2.8 billion more for their food as a result of restriction and quotas placed on foreign imports ..." [8]

European Community.

"In europe as a whole, they (subsidies for beef, Sheep, Pig and milk products in 1994) were more than £100 billion .. ." [9]

Latin America.

Sometimes it seems that public acceptance of subsidies for livestock pharmers is often used by governments simply as an excuse to hand out huge sums of money to their supporters, "The sweeping advance of ranching into forests in Latin America cannot be explained by the profitability of beef production. Real estate speculation is the overriding motive." [10]

United States of America.

"Congress, which annually awards to farmers up to $25 billion in price supports ..." [11]

United States of America and Russia.

"Both 'farm superpowers' typically spend more than $20bn per annum on agricultural subsidies." [12]

2.5.2: Indirect Subsidies for Meat Production.

Pharmers are given massive indirect subsidies. There are a wide range of indirect subsidies such as providing public grazing land, providing cheap crops which are used as livestock feed, cheap water supplies, free fencing, free pest control, etc. etc.

European Community.

"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 prouction even in those countries which are the lowest cost producers." [13]

United States of America.

"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." [14]

OECD.

"Meat, dairy and feed producers benefit from a variety of measures such as guaranteed minimum prices, government storage of surpluses, feed subsidies, import levies and product insurance. According to the OECD, government programs in its member states provided subsidies to animal farmers and feed growers worth $120 billion in 1990 up from $110b in 1989." [15]

General.

"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. 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). Subsidies in US agriculture are just as whimsical: one government agency subsidises irrigation for crops that another agency pays farmers not to grow at all." [16]

2.5.3: Subsidies to Pharmers for producing Diseased Products.

Brutland.

"According to a government commissioned report, the first year of the bse crisis cost britain nearly £1 billion and 1,000 jobs. The impact was less severe because consumers and manufacturers switched from beef to british pork, lamb and poultry. Jobs were saved because the government pumped £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money into subsidies and compensation for farmers, abattoirs and renderers. Once government subsidies and the growth in other u.k. meat sales were taken into account, the farming industry actually saw a rise in revenue in 1996 compared to the previous year. So far 170,734 cattle have gone down with bse. Since the slaughter of Animals over 30 months old began in 1997, more than 2 million have been killed." [17] ; "Bans on brutish beef have cost us more than £500 million in exports and an estimated 6,000 jobs." [18]

Some commentators believe that one of the main reasons the tory government lost the 1997 general election was because of the increase in income tax it introduced in 1992. It is also believed that if the tory government had managed to reverse this tax increase before the election it might have won back many of its supporters and won the election. The tory government had a choice: it could either reduce income tax and win the 1997 general election or it could compensate pharmers for producing bse-infected Cattle by giving them the equivalent of a 2p reduction in income tax and thus lose the election .. "the bse subsidy, so far running at £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax." [19] It chose to fund the pharmers rather than stand any chance of winning the election. If the bse & bse-cjd crisis hadn't occurred the government would have had a considerable sum of money for tax cuts before the election. The tories were brought down primarily because of the bse-cjd crisis, "Last year, brutland spent £3 billion subsidizing intensive farming and the same amount clearing up after bse and agricultural pollution." [20]

2.5.4: Subsidies for Exporting Meat.

Brutland.

"Mr richardson, a committee member of the British Beef Exporters Group said, "Beef exporting is not viable without a subsidy." He said the cost of producing beef in Europe is far above the world price." [21] In other words, the self-proclaimed laisser-faire, free market, brutish government which for 18 years condemned state subsidies for ailing industries, was willing to sacrifice any number of lives and wreck any number of european policies solely so that it could continue subsidizing, at taxpayers' expense, the spread of a highly infectious disease around the world. What else is this but the banality of evil?

2.5.5: Subsidies for Producing Dairy Products.

Brutland.

Consumers pay.. "2.5 pence over and above the market price every time they buy a pint of milk." [22]

2.5.6: Subsidies for Producing 'Green' Energy.

Brutland.

"The energy ratio (i.e. available energy output in the crop divided by the energy input requirement for growing, harvesting and transport) has been put at between 10 and 100 (for short rotation coppice), much higher than for the liquid biofuels like rme/diesel. The overall process involves several stages - growing over 2-3 years, cutting and converting to wood chip, storage and drying, transport to a power plant for combustion. A 10mwe unit run continuously at 80% efficiency would require around 60 tonnes of wood chip per day i.e.3x20 tonne lorry loads per day. Currently, no 'change of use application' need be sought for switching set aside or arable land to coppicing. The national farmers union is strongly in favour of coppicing - sensing a new opportunity for its members. The bottom line could be that src for energy is just too land intensive: the average power output works out at around 3 mw(e)h/yr/hectare, about 40 times more per kwh than a windfarm. Although farm land is relatively cheap, and not the main cost factor, this may be one part of the reason why the economics of src still look a little problematic. (As regards the arbre scheme at eggborough). So far only one farmer has signed up to supply chips - from just 12ha, whereas the plant will need 5000 aces of coppice to run. But the forestry commission has now announced it will put in £1 million every year for three years from 1998 till 2001 .. in other words the extra money is simply and solely to save the arbre project." [23]

2.5.7: Total Subsidies to the Pharming Sector.

Brutland.

.. "£10 billion a year in agricultural subsidies and price support." [24]

2.5.8: Subsidies to Pharmers for doing Nothing.

Perhaps even more amazing than the subsidies given to pharmers for producing meat and clearing up after outbreaks of disease, are the subsidies given to pharmers for doing nothing. One of the excuses for paying out huge sums of money for pharmers to do nothing is to prevent them from producing too much food. Rather than allowing a contraction of the industry, the european union and the brutish government prefer to subsidize an ailing industry.

European Community.

.. "the European Union's current strategy is to take land out of production and move from a system of price support to one based on income support via area payments to one based on income support via area payments for land in production. To qualify for such payments farmers must set aside 15% of their eligible land area. For the UK some 650,000 ha has now been entered into the various set aside schemes. For the whole of Europe the figure is in excess of 4 million ha." [25]

Brutland.

An english arable farmer was paid £1.25 million of taxpayers' money not to produce crops in last year's harvest. In total farmers were paid £840 million in state aid for doing nothing. [26]

2.5.9: Government Subsidies to Devastate the Earth's Life Support System.

Pharmers are also subsidized to destroy the Earth's life support system. Cattle and other livestock cause deforestation by grazing on saplings and by trampling on vegetation, "Because many (state) subsidies (to farmers) are tied to production or paid by head of livestock, the incentive to produce regardless of the cost to the environment is institutionalized." [27]

2.5.10: Money for Nothing: Subsidies not to Devastate the Earth's Life Support System.

Pharmers are subsidized to destroy the Earth's life support system but they are also subsidized not to devaste the land. The reason they can get away with ruining their land is because they are not subject to planning regulations. If a government changed the planning laws to prevent landowners from devasting natural areas there would be no need to hand out huge subsidies to stop them doing this, "Lord kimball, president of the british field sports society, recently asked for millions of pounds in compensation not to develop protected peatlands on his flow country estate in scotland. Also supporting the march was leading advocate of Fox hunting, viscount cranborne, who recently sought to plant conifers on an ancient woodland site in his dorset estate. He accepted a reputed £400,000 from the government not to." [28] The 1981 Wildlife and countryside act entitles pharmers to compensation for not developing an ecological habitat which could not be pharmed profitably without substantial subsidies.

2.5.11: Missing Subsidies.

"Farmers and fishermen are fleecing euro coffers of £3 billion a year, watchdogs revealed yesterday. The court of auditors in brussels said up to 5% of the entire e.u. budget was now unaccounted for. Huge amounts were wrongly paid out in subsidies to beef farmers caught up in the 'mad cow' crisis and to trawlermen facing shrinking fish stocks." [29]

2.5.12: Subsidies for Promoting Meat Ideology.

The brutish government pays the rural elite to advertise the virtues of eating diseased, hormonally boosted, antibiotic-laced, toxic, meat. In other words, it pays the meat industry's bills for political propaganda, "A £2 million campaign aimed at encouraging beefeaters to buy britsh was launched yesterday. The drive follows evidence that nearly 75% of consumers prefer to eat home-grown beef. Organized by the meat and livstock commission the goal is to convert people to british beef and put pressure on importers to shop at home" [30] In addition, it also goes out of its way to put these diseased commodities into schools, "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." [31]

2.6: The Social Subsidies which Urbanites provide for the Rural Elite.

The massive, and wide ranging, subsidies given to pharmers are only a part of the subsidies which urban people unwittingly provide for rural areas. Urban people also subsidize a wide range of rural services.

2.6.1: Gas.

In many countries around the world, the main source of gas supply may be only a few gas fields. There are two realities about the economics of gas supplies. Firstly, the further away that consumers are from the source of gas, the greater the distribution costs. Secondly, the more people who live in a particular area who use gas, the cheaper it is to supply them with this form of energy.

Given these economic facts of life it is far cheaper to provide people living in urban areas with gas than it is to provide people living in rural areas. The laying of gas pipelines to rural areas is far more expensive than it is for people living in urban areas. It is far cheaper to provide gas to towns and cities that are far away from sources of gas than to supply it to nearby rural areas. And yet, to a large extent, around the country everyone buys gas at the same price. If people living in rural areas had to pay the full cost of their gas supplies it would be too expensive for them to afford. If the people living in urban areas paid the real economic cost of gas, the price would drop dramatically. In effect, the urban poor are subsidizing the rural rich.

2.6.2: Electricity.

Although there are far more sources of electricity than there are sources of gas the economic arguments outlined above for gas also apply to the provision of electricity. Once again, ruralites pay the same amount for their electricity as urbanites even though the costs of supplying electricity to large numbers of people living in urban areas are far lower than supplying electricity to people dispersed through rural areas. This is as true in the over-industrialized nations as it is in the industrializing nations .. "most developing country governments heavily subsidize the extension of grid electricity to rural areas, as well as the installation of diesel water pumps." [32]

2.6.3: Water Supply.

The same economic realities also apply to water. Perhaps the biggest subsidy which urbanites are forced to give to ruralites is in water supply. Water authorities in brutland tend to cover huge regional areas and yet everyone within the region pays the same amount for water no matter whether they live in urban areas or out in the country. It is far more expensive piping water to tiny villages and hamlets than it is to urban areas.

2.6.4: Sewage Disposal.

Another subsidy which urbanites give to rural people is for sewage disposal.

2.6.5: Telephones.

Once again, it is far cheaper to provide telephone services to people in urban areas than to those in rural areas and yet everyone pays the same. The laying of cables or transmission lines is far more expensive in rural areas than in urban areas. Urban people are thus subsidizing this service for rural people.

2.6.6: 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 and both gave huge subsidies to maintain rural services. Public transport in urban areas was profitable but most of the profits were then wasted on providing rural services.

2.6.7: Postal Services.

In brutland, postal services are still run by a nationalized industry. As a consequence the 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 the opposite end of the country than to deliver a letter between adjacent rural areas. The current pricing system for letter delivery, like all other postal services, 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.

2.6.8: Storm Damage.

Whenever there is a storm, flood, snow drift, etc services such as electricity, gas, water or telephones, are much more likely to be damaged in rural areas than in urban areas because electricity pylons are buried underground and telephone wires are protected from the elements by buildings. Most of the damage caused by natural disasters occurs in rural areas but the costs of repairing this damage doesn't fall on the people using these services but on all consumers i.e. those in urban areas. It is argued that floods are a frequent occurrence in this country. This is not true. Floods are a frequent occurrence in rural areas. There are virtually no floods of major cities in this country. And yet urban people are expected to pay for the costs incurred by rural floods. If rural people won't move into urban areas where they will be far less affected by natural disasters why should they have to keep being financially baled out by urban consumers?

2.6.9: The Effect of Privatization on Rural Subsidies.

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

The privatization of these industries has had little impact on 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 private owners took over the costs of running the system were fairly equal. And, because of the dominance of rural ideology in brutland, there were no demands from urban people that ruralites should pay their way so why disturb a system that was functioning profitably?

Bus Subsidies.

Since the privatization of the 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 operate only at a loss because demand is low. This is because of the small number of people living in the countryside, the dispersal of the population, and because many rich rural folk have 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." [33] . People are disbursed over large areas in the countryside so there are never enough passengers using a particular service to make it profitable. In order to pick up enough passengers, buses have to make so many detours to surrounding villages that journeys take far longer than is necessary. The privatization of bus services has 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 the urban masses who would have to pay for 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've already received. If they weren't given so many subsidized services then they wouldn't be living in rural area making absurd demands for even more subsidies.

Postal Services.

Most of the privatizations of nationalized industries carried out by the 1979-97 tory governments were extremely popular amongst the middle classes who bought up as many shares as they could and made huge windfall profits. One of the strangest anomalies in this privatization revolution was the tory's failure to privatize the post office. It wasn't as if this proposal was more unpopular than other privatizations. But this time the real opponents of privatization were not the urban poor but tory mps representing the interests of the rural middle classes. They realized the privatization of the post office would mean a huge rise 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 providing postal services they would be virtually unaffordable. The fact that the cost of delivering letters between urban areas would drop dramatically was of no interest to them.

2.6.10: Technological Changes Reducing the Differences between Town and Countryside.

Technological changes are coming to the rescue of rural people by ironing out the differences between the town and the countryside. Firstly, telecommunications. The use of mobile phones which don't need transmission lines means that calls are as cheap in rural areas as they are in urban areas. Secondly, the development of solar energy will also mean there is little difference in the cost of electricity in urban and rural areas, "Worldwatch note that the second highly promising source of electricity is the photovoltaic cell, which it reports is now the source of electricity in some 400,000 homes, mostly in third world villages." [34] Even some of the most retarded fossil fuel industries are beginning to take their first steps toward the promotion of solar energy which will help to overcome the economic differences between town and countryside, "In september, oil giant b.p. announced plans to cut its own industrial emissions by 10% by 2010. Then, in october, shell followed suit and made its own commitment to a 10% cut. Shell has just announced the world's largest ever project to supply solar panels to rural homes. It will spend $30 in south africa providing solar panels for homes that are remote from the power grid. In the u.s., the oil industry still has its head in the sand." [35]

2.6.11: Conclusions.

The number of commentators who have noticed and highlighted the huge social subsidies which the urban poor give to the rural rich is miniscule, "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." [36] ; "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." [37] ; "According to steven landsburg, "In the u.s. we subsidize electricity for rural areas, mail for rural areas. These rural areas depend on the great population centres to support the style of living to which they have come accustomed. The wealth comes from the big cities." [38]

This is a rarely discussed feature of modern life . Most left wingers see rural areas as being inhabited by poor people so they see nothing objectionable about giving subsidies to the poor. On the contrary many of them want to see a huge increase in subsidies for people living in rural areas. This is true for all types of subsidies, including economic development to provide jobs, "If rural Britain is to remain rural it will need to find sources of local employment for local people. I shall argue that small-scale manufacturing offers an alternative to both destructive development in the countryside and rural neglect." [39] For left wingers the issue of subsidies for rural areas is seen solely in terms of ensuring there is an equal distribution of wealth throughout society. They are completely ignorant of green issues and so there is no questioning of whether it is geophysiologically sensible to try and resuscitate rural economies.

There is little doubt that life is difficult for the poor in rural areas, "A 1997 report by the rural development commission reveals that half of all rural u.k. food shops closed in the six years since 1991." [40] However, if people choose to live in the countryside where there are no local services then this is their decision and they shouldn't expect poor townies to subsidize their choices. The subsidies which townies are being forced to give to rural people are excessive. From an economic perspective, it would be far better if rural people were moved to urban areas because if all subsidies to rural areas were stopped then the cost of living for urban people would drop dramatically and enormous improvements could be made to the quality of life in urban areas. The reason the cost of living is so high and the quality of life so low, in urban areas is because urbanites are being fleeced by their rural counterparts, most of whom are far wealthier than they are. However, in addition, this issue has to be explored from the Earth's perspective. It is a geophysiological issue.

2.7: The Current State of the Rural Exploitation of Urbanites.

2.7.1: The Modern Challenges to Rural Power.

2.7.1.1: The Rise of the Hunt Saboteurs Group.

The first modern protest by urbanites against the barbaric antics of rural folk began in the 1970s when hunt saboteurs started protesting against Fox hunting and Grouse shooting.

2.7.1.2: The Rise of Anti-Roads Protests.

The hunt saboteur movement was followed, in the 1990s, by anti-roads' protesters who sought to stop the construction of roads and other developments by occupying construction sites. Many of their campaigns involved civil disobedience. On occasions, they were supported by some sections of the rural community - although not by all.

2.7.1.3: The Rise of the Good Times Groups.

Once these groups began to expose the legally underprotected nature of rural areas, a number of social groups began to invade the countryside. They were not concerned with defending the countryside, let alone green issues, but with exploiting the countryside for their own personal benefit i.e. Hare coursers, travellers, and ravers i.e. hordes of ecstatic, young car drivers looking for a place to boogie. Landowners disliked having their leisure activities disrupted by hunt saboteurs but they were incensed by decadent social groups ruining their land just for the sake of self-indulgence. They started lobbying the tory government, which was notoriously indifferent to social legislation, to criminalize trespassing on private property and eventually legislation was passed. Monbiot argues that landowners are a very powerful group in parliament, "Landowners have never relinquished their grip on government. .. their greatest victory this decade has been the trespass provisions of the Criminal Justice Act .. These were first proposed by the Country Landowners association in 1985, and were partly accommodated in the Public Order Act of 1986. Unappeased, the CLA continued to lobby until, eight years later, it achieved everything it had been pressing for." [41] Their fears and anxieties were not quelled by the tory's criminalizing of the law of trespass.

The rural elite are able to use the government, the law and the judicial system to defend, and even extend, their interests but it is far more difficult for them to get new legislation through parliament. It has to be suggested that if it took them eight years to get a bill through parliament it doesn't exactly suggest they've got a "grip on government".

2.7.1.4: The Establishment of the 'Land is ours' Group.

In april 1995 george monbiot wrote an article in the guardian complaining about the lack of public access to the countryside and, as a result of the large response, set up the 'land is ours' group. It achieved wide scale publicity partly because of monbiot's contacts in the media but also because the guardian newspaper promoted the issue by inviting a series of authors to give their reasons for supporting increased access to the countryside. However, the guardian wasn't interested in a radical critique of their demands.

2.7.1.5: The Establishment of the Countryside Movement and the Union of Country Sports Workers.

In november 1995, the increasing publicity obtained by the 'land is ours' and the increasing likelihood of a labour victory at the next general election led the rural elite to set up the 'countryside movement', "Britain's newest and probably most powerful blodsport and countryside lobbying group was launched yesterday with a £3.5m advertising campaign. After months of secret preparations, the countryside movement was founded to protect the interests of rural britain as well as those of the hunting, shooting and fishing lobbies. David steel, the movement's executive chairman, said the aim of the advertising campaign was to build up a huge database of people with an interest in all aspects of the countryside who could be mobilized over key issues that affect them." [42] The founding statement of the countryside movement included a call for greater autonomy for rural areas, "Fundamentally, the countryside movement believes that those who live and work in the countryside are best qualified to look after it." [43] It was later divulged that david steel, the liberal democrat mp, was receiving payment for his work. The founding of the countryside movement was followed, in april 1997, by the formation of a bloodsports trade union, "An unlikely new trade union is being launched today. The union of country sports workers, comprising an estimated 125,000 gamekeepers, ghillies, grooms, hunt employees, farriers, beaters, stalkers and saddlers, are to .. campaign to save hunting in the event of a labour government." [44]

It wasn't long before the countryside was to erupt in indignation when urbanites elected a labour government after 18 years of appalling tory sleaze. The countryside movement was in a central position to harness all the fears felt by rural people as they awaited their fate from the new labour government.

2.7.2: The Rural Implications of the Labour Party's Victory at the May 1997 General Election.

The labour party's victory in the may 1997 general election led to an outbreak of fear and anxiety throughout the countryside. Despite new labour's efforts to give itself broad appeal during the election campaign, the policies it formulated in opposition were tantamount to a full scale assault on rural interests. Quite unintentionally, even for a party so besotted with public relations, the new labour government had created the illusion it was going to bring about a radical transformation of the countryside. It was seen as a huge threat to a wide range of rural interests.

2.7.2.1: The Manifesto Commitment to Ban Handguns.

One of the labour government's first decisions which infuriated the rancid ranks of rural rednecks was the ban on all handguns.

2.7.2.2: The Manifesto Commitment to Ban Hunting with Animals.

One of the biggest fears of many rural folk was that the labour government would introduce a bill to ban hunting with Animals. The countryside clubbers had already been outraged that the national trust had banned Deer hunting on its land (indeed some rural folk, possibly members of the countryside movement, carried out a mass slaughter of Deer in retaliation for the ban). Rural folk feared the popular revulsion of blood sports amongst urbanites would encourage the labour government to ban blood sports.

It rapidly became transparent, however, a long time prior to the countryside march, that the labour government was not interested in supporting such a bill. The labour government's rumour-mongers put out the word that they feared the lords would block the government's entire legislative programme in order to stall a blood sports bill. The government thus refused to do anything about this issue but, unfortunately for them, the lottery amongst members of parliament to promote the first private members' bill was won by mike foster who chose to champion an anti-hunting bill. The government refused to support it or find time for it in their legislative programme. The government's refusal to support the bill for fear that the lords would disrupt the government's legislative programme was only partially true because the government also refused to ban blood sports even on its own land, "Ministers sparked fury last night by approving fox hunting on army land. They renewed licenses for the field sport on the m.o.d.'s 500,000 acres after farmers threatened to disrupt exercises." [45] Clearly violence pays substantial political dividends - no labour cries of "We'll never submit to terrorism" here - this is heard only when Animal rights protestors threaten to starve themselves to death. In addition, "A pledge to suspend licenses for hunting on Forestry Commission land turned into a review and a promise to end badger killing has been dropped. And the government has U-turned twice over Animal experiments on behalf of the cosmetics industry. Before the election Labour said it would provide all the parliamentary time needed for such a bill to become law. After the election they changed their minds - which would effectively kill the bill .." [46] Within a short while the government was already being referred to as U-Labour even by its own friends.

2.7.2.3: The Manifesto Commitment to the Right to Roam.

Another major fear, perhaps felt not so much by rural people as the rural elite, was the labour party's manifesto commitment to legislate on the right to roam.

2.7.2.4: The Manifesto Commitment to Predict and Build.

A more widespread fear amongst highly privileged country dwellers was that the labour government would allow the construction of vast numbers of new houses in idyllic rural areas or on greenfield sites. [47]

2.7.2.5: The Manifesto Commitment to an Independent Food Agency.

Pharmers were very uneasy about the labour government's commitment to set up an independent food agency which would oversee the movement of food from the pharm to the plate. They were also worried because the labour government seemed more willing to blame the Animal exploitation industry for causing large numbers of ooman fatalities. Some 19,000 people die from bowel cancer each year and the secretary of state for health suggested this might be due to the consumption of red meat, "In september (1998) health secretary frank dobson advised people eating normal amounts of red meat to "consider a reduction" to lower their chances of getting the disease. The average brit eats three ounces of cooked red meat - beef, lamb, pork, beefburgers and sausages - per day. (Professor philip james) .. suggested guidelines similar to those from the world cancer research fund, which backs daily consumption of less than three ounces." [48]

2.7.2.6: The High Cost of the Pound.

In addition to these social and political challenges facing rural people there was a considerable economic factor which was shaking the rural economy. When the labour government came into power it adopted a high interest rate policy which drove up the value of the pound and immediately hurt all exporters. One of the smallest of the groups affected was pharmers (who's exports were possible only because they were being subsidized). The rising value of the pound made meat exports more and more expensive, "The bse crisis and the strong pound have forced down the price farmers get for their meat, leaving many struggling to survive. Lamb is down 53.7p a lb or 40% in a year to just 80.9p, according to the meat and livestock commission. The farm price of beef has fallen 12.6p a lb to 76p while shop prices dropped 10.4p to 166.8p. And pig farmers are getting 7.1p a lb less for pork at 40.6p, when shop prices fell only 5.6p to 98.6p." [49] On the first of december 1997 the slow erosion of pharmers' incomes led a group of welsh pharmers blockading ports along the west coast of brutland. At holyhead port one group of disgruntled pharmers hijacked an irish lorry and chucked its contents of beefburgers into the sea. This was ironic since most of the demonstrators were Sheep pharmers protesting about cheap imports of Lamb.

The criminal hijacking and vandalism at holyhead made headline news. It was portrayed in the media as being angry beef farmers protesting about the unfairness of the e.u's ban on brutish exports. In reality most of the protestors had been Sheep pharmers protesting about the increasing costs of Sheep and Pig exports. The livestock industry is so used to receiving welfare benefit payments they believe they are even entitled to compensation for the rising pound. As far as is known this is the only group of workers in the country who believe they have the right to demand compensation not only for the sale of diseased products but for increases in currency costs.

The action taken at holyhead rapidly spread to other ports around the country. Beef pharmers joined the demonstrations not because of the increasing cost of exporting beef but because cheap imports of beef were undermining domestic sales of home produced beef. Pharmers started following lorries with imported beef to try and find out who the retailers were. The retailers were then picketed until they agreed to buy brutish beef. Pharmers' representatives pretended these protests were about the injustices of the bse crisis because they believed it would not be good public relations to make demands for compensation for the losses incurred by the rising pound. Even a week after wanton destruction of property at holyhead, the media was still reporting the protests as a simple dispute over the bse crisis - perhaps even they were too embarrassed to report that pharmers wanted compensation for the rising pound, "Cattle prices crashed in the bse crisis yesterday - as Cows were auctioned off for the cost of a beefburger meal. Premier tony blair appealed for calm and warned pickets that they will make it harder to end a euro ban on british beef. He spoke out after rowdy confrontations in dover, holyhead, fishguard, stranraer and other ports, sparked by farmers who want to keep out cheap irish beef. The PM signalled there will not be extra cash for farmers on top of the amount already being spent on the crisis. Downing street insisted that no "pot of gold" existed to boost farming aid." [50]

The political importance of these protests was that for the first time all pharmers were united in trying to protect the meat industry as a whole. Throughout the 1990s the beef industry had suffered alone as a result of the bse crisis - even though it is highly likely that bse has now spread to Sheep and that all livestock carry the disease. If anything, the other parts of the meat industry had benefitted from the slump in beef sales. However, the increasing value of the pound was beginning to have an increasing impact on the Pig and Sheep industries and this led to the creation of a united front amongst all section of the Animal exploitation industry.

What particularly incensed these anti-european pharmers was that they were entitled to compensation from the european community but the british government refused to apply for it, "Europe has a compensation scheme available to aid farmers suffering from the strength of sterling but the british government has refused to apply for the full package. Brussels has calculated that the compensation due to all british pharmers hit by the strong pound is £980 million but the government has only applied for less than a tenth, £85 million. The reason they haven't asked for all of it is because on european union rules on contribution, the british taxpayers would end up paying nearly £800 million, three-quarters of the total. But the farmers insist they are entitled to the full compensation. The conservatives had promised to claim the compensation before the election. Livestock farmers expect their incomes to take another knock in april." [51] Even the most rancid right wing free market loonies, the daily mail had to acknowledge, "There is an e.u. mechanism to help alleviate the impact of currency fluctuations but agriculture minister jack cunningham has ruled out taking advantag of it. Technically farmers are entitled to £980 million in extra subsidy. However britain's complex rebate system means 71% of it would have to come from the u.k. taxpayer." [52]

Pharmers' illegal protests against the rising pound continued all the way up to the countryside march and indicated that the entire pharming industry was in a state of crisis. Jane corbin claimed that pharmers had lost half their income although she gave no evidence of the numbers of pharmers who suffered such a drop nor how long they had suffered such a loss, "A quarter of a million people marched through london. They say the government is killing the countryside. Farm incomes have halved. Farmers claim the whole future of rural britain is threatened." [53]

2.7.2.7: The Manifesto Commitment to tackle Bse.

2.7.2.7.1: New health and Hygiene Measures.

The labour government seemed far more willing than the tories to push through the harsh measures needed to combat bse. The beef industry was sent reeling even more by news that, "The government has decided to introduce £100 million worth of new health and hygiene charges which will fall on the farmers. European competitors will be given another edge because their governments pay all these costs." [54]

2.7.2.7.2: The Decision to Hold a Bse Enquiry.

Pharmers were also antagonized by the government's announcement of a public enquiry into the bse epidemic. As far as pharmers were concerned, bse is no threat to ooman health and the sooner the public accepts that only a couple of dozen of them will die from eating diseased beef and lamb the better.

2.7.2.7.3: The Ban on T-Bone Steak.

One of the biggest sources of anger in the rural backwoods was that on december 3rd 1997, a mere two days after pharmers started blockading the ports and throwing beef burgers into the sea, jack cunningham announced a ban on t-bone steaks because of the threat posed by bse. "Agriculture minister jack cunningham announced a ban on cuts such as ribs and T-bone steaks after government researchers found that dorsal root ganglia, swellings on nerve branches near the spinal chord that lie within the vertebrae, are infective. A sample of bone marrow also showed signs of infectivity, but this result needs to be confirmed to rule out contamination from other tissues. Other tissues known to be infectious are the brain, retina, spinal cord, and the end of the ileum, part of the small intestine." [55] This measure incensed the beef industry and led to an increase in pharmers' protests at docks around the country. It suggested that cunningham was willing to take on the pharmers.

The antecedents of this ban go back to march 20th 1996 when tory pharmers in the lords and commons could no longer cover up the bse-cjd epidemic. In order to combat the spread of bse-cjd, seac recommended that all Cattle meat should be deboned. The tory government made a political, not a scientific, decision to ignore this recommendation because it would have forced up the price of brutish beef. It choose instead to accept the nfu's proposal to cull all Animals over 30 months old and allow the sale of unboned beef from Cattle under this age. Thereafter the tories believed the deboning issue was an irrelevance. Unfortunately for them seac continued to support what it regarded as a scientific stance.

Logically, if the culling of Cattle over 30 months old made the deboning proposal irrelevant then it should also have made the offals ban irrelevant but even the extremist tory government felt it was not politically expedient to rescind this regulation. But if it was going to continue to remove bse-infected offals it should also have removed bse-infected bones. For the tories, keeping the offals ban in place had the unfortunate side effect of keeping the deboning issue in play.

Pharmers were extremely distressed by cunningham's bse-on-the-bone ban especially because their biggest sales occur in the run up to xmas. One pharmer interviewed on channel four news felt the ban was unavoidable but wanted the government to delay the announcement until after xmas - yet another case of the 'I just can't get my head around the view that beef carries a fatal disease'.

The ban on bse-on-the-bone was made in the midst of a strange constellation of political circumstances. Ironies abounded. At the same time as welsh pharmers had been blockading various ports around the country, it was announced that coal pits were likely to close in the near future with the loss of 5,000 jobs. In the mid-1980s the tory government had treated miners with complete contempt and had brutally thrown tens of thousands of them out of work and dumped them onto the scrap heap. A decade later, when it was discovered that consumers didn't want to eat diseased meat, the tory government decided to fork out billions of pounds in compensation to their tory pharming friends, many of them tory mps. Now the labour government was faced with the choice of bailing out either the pharmers or the miners. It eventually became clear that even a labour government was more willing to fork out subsidies (i.e. welfare benefit handouts) to pharmers rather than miners. Even more ironic was that pharmers were using flying pickets to block beef imports at the docks, just as the miners had done, and yet they were not brutally beaten into submission by the police.

It should also be noted that pharmers adopted even more extreme tactics than Animal rights protestors demonstrating against live Animal exports. For years pharmers had condemned such actions as being lawless anarchism and threatened to sue all concerned but apparently they saw no hypocrisy in using the same tactic. If Animal rights activists had hijacked a container of live Animals and then set the Animals free, some beef eating, rural landowning, judge with a long criminal record of false imprisonmnets, would have called them urban terrorists and sentenced them to 18 years' imprisonment for wrecking the brutish economy. So far blair has given the pharmers only a billion quid in compensation, "The taxpayer will pay £1.4 billion this year in support of the brutish beef industry." [56]

2.7.2.8: The Manifesto Commitment to Reduce Pharm Subsidies.

There was one issue which, more than any other, generated a substantial amount of fear amongst all pharmers, and the entire rural community, about their long term future - the government's aim of abolishing agricultural subsidies in the next round of the gatt treaty. Tony blair had been an ardent supporter of this policy ever since he became leader of the labour party. He was following in the footsteps of his beloved margaret thatcher, in supporting global free trade. He appointed jack cunningham as secretary of state for agriculuture to pursue this goal and, in january 1998, cunningham told an audience of pharmers' representatives that continued subsidies to pharmers were no longer feasible. He wanted to see the abolition of subsidies on cereals, beef and dairy products, and an end to the system of milk quotas. [57] The seriousness of this threat could be seen from the fact that it led to a bbc tv 'panorama' investigation into countryside issues, "Mr cunningham's attitude has shocked the farmers. In the past they have been able to count on considerable political support. Since the second world war, the government has used taxpayers' money to guarantee the production of food. The cap now costs us £3billion a year. The government wants reform and less subsidy. They want a new basis for agriculture." [58] Cunningham was rapidly becoming the pharmers' bogeyman, "Furious farmers pelted agriculture minister jack cunningham's car with eggs yesterday in protest about the beef crisis. About 70 took part in the demo outside a london studio." [59]

2.7.2.9: Conclusion.

There were many reasons why the labour government posed a considerable threat to the interests of virtually everyone living in the countryside. There were widespread anxieties amongst ruralites about the radical changes about to befall them .. "the anger in the countryside is more general than that (against michael foster' bill on hunting). It springs from a feeling that those in control are too urban in their outlook, that everything from planning to the price of petrol is determined with the suburban masses in mind. Those campaigning for legislation suspect that blair has been got at. Besking believes that blair will find himself isolated in the cabinet over the issues and names four cabinet colleagues - frank dobson, chris smith, ann taylor and david clarke - who are personally committed to seeing legislation passed." [60] ; "For the right to roam is just the latest in a series of measures - bse, fox hunting, green belt housing - that make labour look as though it is clobbering people who live in the countryside." [61]

If the labour party had deliberately set out to promote the interests of townies over ruralites it couldn't have done better than its 1997 election manifesto. However, this was new labour and it wasn't going to allow manifesto commitments to get in its way of winning a second period in office.

2.7.3: The March 1st 1998 Countryside Demo.

2.7.3.1: The Red Necks' Organizing the Demo.

The increasing build up of anger and anxiety in rural areas culminated in the mass protest of jobsons in hyde park on march 1st 1998. From all accounts attendance at this demonstration was as compulsory for rural folk as pro stalin demos in the 1930s. According to the 'mirror', "The march was dominated by the pro-hunting lobby with support from organizations such as the Jockey club and the timber growers' association." [62] It was also supported by a wide range of aristocratic welfare benefit scroungers, "Lord kimball, president of the british field sports society, recently asked for millions of pounds in compensation not to develop protected peatlands on his flow country estate in scotland. Also supporting the march was leading advocate of Fox hunting, viscount cranborne, who recently sought to plant conifers on an ancient woodland site in his dorset estate. He accepted a reputed £400,000 from the government not to." [63] Not surprisingly, "The duke of westminster, the rally's main funder ..." [64]

Norman tebbit was interviewed for his opinion of the countryside alliance's march. He emphasized the importance of the alliance's 'listen to us' message to the government. Is it possible he might have forgotten he was one of the most strident members of one of the most ideological bigoted and intransigent government's this country has ever known?

2.7.3.2: The Red Necks' Demands.

2.7.3.2.1: Broad Brush Demands.

One commentator believed the main instigators behind the demonstration were pro hunt supporters who rallied the support of other rural groups because a demonstration solely about Fox hunting would have met with public animosity, "So what exactly was Farmer Giles' barmy army complaining about yesterday? .. Labour's planned ban on Fox hunting. If farmer giles' barmy army declared that they have the right to watch wild Animals being torn apart by a pack of bloodthirsty hounds, the ordinary person would feel scant sympathy for them. But if they fill hyde park complaining that england's green and pleasant land will soon look like a multi-storey car park in eastern europe, they know that the government has to listen. The real argument is about Fox hunting." [65]

2.7.3.2.2: Reinstitute the Corn Laws.

Just how much anxiety, paranoia, and plain redneck stupidity, was welling up amongst rural dwellers could be seen from a statement by one right wing, free market, thatcherite, bigot who was incensed at the withdrawal of pharmers' subsidies, "Country people feel betrayed and neglected, singled out for punishment. Above all, they think they have been treated by authority with base ingratitude. The country interest was first forsaken by the tories in 1846 when robert peel scrapped the corn laws. Whatever benefits farmers once had from the european union has long disappeared .. The brussels bureaucracy is causing ever-growing problems with minute regulations, vetoes on traditional fruit and vegetables and methods and, above all, health scares. The attack on hunting and other fieldsports is also seen, correctly, as largely inspired by class warfare fed by urban ignorance, an abuse of legislative power by a parliamentary majority. The countryside is emerging as the most impressive pressure group of the nineties." [66] It's funny hearing protests from thatcherites about, "An abuse of legislative power by a parliamentary majority".

2.7.3.2.3: Bring Back the Franchise.

One commentator was hoping the demonstration might bring back the days when the only people who could vote in elections were those who owned a couple of thousand acres of land, "The real politics of the march can be seen from the organizer who complained that "Rural areas acount for 75% of britain's land mass, yet are represented by only 11% of mps."" [67]

2.7.3.3: One Dead Gamekeeper - Good Riddance

"A gamekeeper killed himself because he feared the campaign to ban blood sports would cost him his job and tied cottage." [68] He lived by the gun so it is hardly surprising he should've died by it.

2.7.4: Boneless Blair's Reversals over the Countryside March.

The countryside march was a major turning point for the blair government. Almost as soon as the march was announced the government began rapidly backtracking to appease the ruralites. Blair was intent on capturing middle class support.

2.7.4.1: Opposition to the Private Members bill on Hunting.

Soon after the demonstration the government made it plainer than ever that it would not support a ban on blood sports, "Tony blair has signalled that the government is now against a ban on fox hunting. The administration was rattled by last sunday's countryside march in London. And in a U-turn home secretary jack straw forecast it could be 50 years before hunting with hounds is outlawed." [69] ; "Home secretary jack straw said this week, "I do not see a role for government. We do not have a mandate for it." His viewed stunned mr foster's supporters yesterday." [70] After tory mps had talked out foster's 'wild mammals (hunting with Dogs) bill' jack straw made a tiny concession to the anti blood sports lobby, "Jack straw threw anti-hunt campaigners a lifeline last night when he suggested a ban could be in place by the next election. Only 3 months ago he said he saw no role for ministers in banning hunting .. Ministers are currently studying plans for local referendums which could allow residents to either ban or retain hunting in their area." [71] Jack straw is somewhat flippant about the implementation of the law. His son was selling a drug which, according to jack straw was highly dangerous and addictive, and yet when he was caught selling the drug no action was taken to charge him let alone put him on trial and send him to prison. As the home secretary, jack straw allowed the authorities to write off this crime. There's plainly one law for the poor and no law for tories like straw.

2.7.4.2: Less Construction in the Countryside.

Another concession the government made before the countryside alliance march was a promise to reduce house building in green belt areas. This seems to have been a 'concession' welcomed by john prescott who wanted to direct resources into run down urban areas, "I want to replace the top-down 'predict and provide' mentality of the past, with a system which is more responsive, more accountable, and better able to revitalize our towns and cities and protect a living countryside, which we can all enjoy." [72] Unfortunately, his sensible proposals came up against the treasuries narrow minded concern for avoiding new taxes, "John prescott is heading for a clash with gordon brown over the treasury's refusal to back plans for a tax on new homes to curb building on greenfield sites. The deputy prime minister, supported by backbench mps and the commons environment committee, wants to slap vat on new houses to encourage the redevelopment of inner cities. Sources in mr. prescott's department of the environment say he has pressed the chancellor for an early change after being being infuriated by treasury stonewalling and its claim that vat would push up house prices. Mr prescott argues it is indefensible that builders modernizing older properties have to pay the full rate of 17.5% while no vat is levied on new houses because they are regarded as "socially important". His department wants to harmonize the system with a new rate of 5% on old and new homes. The empty homes agency, partly funded by mr.prescott's department, says this across the board rate could cut the number of new homes planned early next century on greenfield sites. It believes 250,000 empty and derelict properties could be brought back into use. Bob lawrence said, "Why do (government funded) housing associations providing refurbished and converted homes for the poorest members of society have to pay full vat when they cannot be less social in purpose than luxury housing?"" [73]

2.7.4.3: The March 1998 Budget.

The budget on march 17th 1998, which followed shortly after the countryside demo, brought further evidence of the government's desire to appease the rural lobby with two additional subsidies.

More Subsidies for Rural Schools.

There was a grant for the abolition of outdoor toilets in rural primary schools, "David blunkett offered £35 million to build indoor (toilet) facilities at the remaining 600 primary schools which lacked them, mostly in rural areas." [74]

More Subsidies for Rural Transport.

There was a massive increase in the grant for public rural transport, "The biggest single boost for public transport was for rural areas where existing grants of around £1 million were increased to £50 million." [75]

2.7.4.4: Retreat from Health Issues.

The government's early interest in health issues i.e. the diseases which rural folk inflict on urban people, was short lived. It had begun to fade a long time before the countryside march. A major report about the links between bowel cancer and the meat consumption should have appeared over the summer of 1997 but, "The government's report has been delayed yet again and i understand there is now no firm publication date." [76] Rather strangely it didn't appear until just after the countryside march.

2.7.4.5: The Delays in the Formation of the Independent Food Agency.

Clearly the fact that the "architect of the new food standards agency", professor philip james, tried to .. "persuade ministers that the advice (on reducing the consumption of red meat) should be strengthened" and that he claimed that .. "the committee had been railroaded by the meat industry." [77] was enough to make him highly suspected amongst the labour government's mincing spin doctors and may have been an indication of the political trouble that would result from setting up an independent agency. The government has shown decreasing interest in the establishment of an independent food agency.

After the election of the labour government blair gave jeff rooker the post of minister of food in the maffia. With tessa jowell at health he created a group called the joint food standards and safety group. Rooker stated that, "It is the embryo of the Food Safety Agency." [78] So far so good but, unfortunately, he soon came down with a dose of maffia corruption. Rooker argued that he didn't want the new agency to face the same dilemmas as maff had done when it was responsible for representing both consumers and producers so this meant preventing it from investigating certain activities on farms, "So we've left veterinary products and pesticides outside its remit, although we've given the FSA long-stop powers that it can use if it thinks things are not being done by the regulatory authorities to prevent food contamination." [79] It wasn't long before rumours started spreading that the independent food agency would no longer cover the entire food chain from the 'pharm to the plate' but would stop outside the pharmers' gate.

2.7.4.6: British Beef is safe after All.

It's strange how influential a march can be in the independent, objective, and impartial world of scientific research. On tuesday march 3rd 1998 the government announced that its earlier health warnings against eating meat were to be withdrawn. Obviously holding a march is conclusive proof that meat is not the cause of cancers, "The government was accused of frantically back-tracking after announcing red meat was safe to eat. One third of cancers are linked to diet but tucking into average amounts of red meat does not increase the risk, according to a labour-appointed study. In september health secretary frank dobson advised people eating normal amounts of red meat to "consider a reduction" to lower their chances of getting the disease. That sparked a furious row and in a U-turn the government now says consumers need not change their ways. .. the report by the committee on medical aspects of food and nutrition policy. The average brit eats three ounces of cooked red meat - beef, lamb, pork, beefburgers and sausages - per day. It is the 15% who eat more than five ounces who could be putting their health at risk. The COMA panel intended to publish its advice in september after considering evidence linking red meat to bowel cancer - which kills 19,000 britons a year. It recommended people who ate five ounces a day should cut down. Then professor philip james, architect of the new food standards agency, persuaded ministers that the advice should be strengthened. He said the committee had been railroaded by the meat industry. James suggested guidelines similar to those from the world cancer research fund, which backs daily consumption of less than three ounces. After yesterday's report chief medical officer kenneth calman said, "Adults who eat more than the average amount of red meat, especially those who eat a lot more, might benefit from a reduction. Average and below average consumers need not change." [80]

2.7.4.7: Bse in British Beef is safe after All.

The government went out of its way to lift the ban on bse exports but, although it eventually succeeded, further changes in pharming practices had to be carried out before beef export could be restarted, "The ban on british beef was lifted yesterday - and britain launched a £3 million crusade to win back lost customers. Most european farm ministers voted in favour of sales restarting, with only germany voting against. Ten nations, including the u.k. backed the move. France, spain, austria and luxembourg abstained." [81] This article didn't contain a single mention of the number of people who died of tory pharmer disease. It's rumoured that saddam is placing an order for hundreds of millions of tonnes of brutish beef which he intends to blast into israel. The american jewish lobby is believed to be gearing up for a global media campaign to expose this as yet another example of iraq's commitment to chemical biological warfare, "Bse is one of the deadliest biological agents we know of." said benjamin gurion, american secretary of state for defence.

The effectiveness of maff's indoctrination of labour politicians who had been put into the ministry to curb pharmers' interests and assert consumers' interests could be seen in the comments made by jeff rooker. It was quite amazing that within a short period of time after entering this diseased ministry, rooker was sounding as if he'd been a life-long member of the maffia. He tried to play down the spread of bse around the country's pharms by protesteing that, "Of the 120,000 farmers with Cattle in the country, two-thirds have never had a case of Bse. And most of those who have are the dairy herds involved in milk production. .. of the beef suckler herds 84% have never had a case of bse." [82] What this statement ignores is the fact that many pharmers hid their cases of bse or sold bse infected Cattle on the open market. Even worse is the pretence that dairy herds are totally different from beef herds when the fact is that almost all Cattle in beef suckler herds come from dairy herds.

Rooker trots out one simple statistical device for dismissing the prevalence of bse by saying that the number of herds affected by bse is miniscule if the huge number of pharms which had only one case of bse is ignored, "And it gets smaller when you discount farms who have only had one case of bse. Roughly 35,000 farms have had bse. But 12,000 of those have only a single case." [83] The fact that some herds had only one case of bse is far more frightening than it might suggest. This is because either pharmers hid subsequent cases in order to protect the reputation of the herds some of which had been reared for generations or it confirms the hypothesis that bse was being passed on not by infective feed as by maternal transmission. If this is the case then it means it will be impossible to eradicate bse from brutish herds. If bse was being passed on through infected feed then a number of Cattle eating from the same bag of feed should have contracted the disease. In many cases though, this did not seem to happen because only a single Animal got the disease. This suggests the disease was passed on from mother to offspring.

Rooker's willingness to protect pharmers interests by distorting the facts could also be seen in another controversial area of modern pharming, "Food minister jeff rooker bungled his gm facts yesterday .. Rooker said that land the size of just two football pitches was being used to test genetically modified produce. The average site, he claimed, was about the size of a dining table. But official figures how there are 717 acres of trial sites, equivalent to 350 pitches." [84]

2.7.4.8: Labour Protection for Bse in Lamb.

The huge number of protests in december 1997 leading to the countryside march in march 1998 persuaded the labour government to ignore scientists' demands for a ban on lamb which it was believed were likely to have contracted bse. The labour government went out of its way to protect the Sheep industry by denouncing scientists as trouble makers even though one of them was on the government's committee investigating bse. What the thatcher administration did for the beef industry tony blair, the people's friend, has done for the Sheep industry. Just like thatcher before him he is willing to sacrifice people for the sake of protecting the Animal exploitation industry.

2.7.4.9: The Bse-on-the-Bone ban Stays despites Labour's Efforts.

One of the reasons for sacking cunningham was so that the blair could reverse the ban on bse-on-the-bone. Ever since the ban had been introduced it had faced ridicule and outright defiance from pharmers, restaurateurs, and hoteliers. As far as blair was concerned the ban was ridiculous and the sooner it was gone the better. Cunningham was replaced by the huge, fat faced, jolly, beef eater, nick brown, who made it known to the media that he fully expected scientists to give him the go ahead to rescind the ban as soon as possible perhaps even in time for xmas. There were reports in the press that scientists were on the verge of agreeing to scrap the ban. These were not impartial reports but government leaks from the maffia designed to put pressure on the scientists to change their minds about the safety of brutish beef. Unfortunately, this tactic did not work and the scientists stuck to their conclusions.

2.7.4.10: Rural Opposition to Petrol Increases.

The labour government had expressed an interest in taking measures to curb Carbon emissions and one of the main ways of doing this was by curbing car use. The government really didn't have to do too much on this issue because the tories had already put in place a mechanism by which fuel prices would rise automatically year after year. However, this didn't stop ruralities from opposing this elementary piece of environmental legislation and a number of labour mps in rural areas voiced their concerns along with labour mps protecting the interests of the urban poor. It is possible these rural protests stopped the government from introducing the more draconian measures needed to stabilize the climate.

2.7.4.11: The Sacking of Jack Cunningham.

Blair appointed cunningham as secretary of state for agriculture to push through the gatt reforms on agriculture but rather surprisingly cunningham turned out to be far too much of a threat to the interests of the Animal slaughter industry. He not only threatened to reduce pharmers' dependency on welfare state benefits, he set up the bse enquiry and banned bse-on-the-bone. But what really put the wind up pharmers was that, "Jack addressed the annual meeting of the Soil Association, the first minister to do so." [85] Conventional pharmers were horrified that cunningham could give any credibility to a bunch of chemical-free hippy farmers.

The meat cleaver brigade eventually had enough of cunningham and pressured blair to get rid of him. They blamed him for triggering off illegal blockades of ports around the country even though this had been due to the rising value of the pound. After the countryside march labour's spin doctors began gloating about his departure to their friends in the right wing press. Soon after the ruralites' demo, "Tony blair was forced to defend the criminalization of T-bone steak lovers yesterday in an embarrassing row with the church. He said the beef ban would stay, even after the bishop of leicester condemned it as an attack on individual freedom on radio four. The rt rev tom butler .. said the ban was as sensible as a "dinosaur-on-the-bone ban". Increasing pressure on jack cunningham, widely tipped for the sack in a cabinet reshuffle, mr hague twice challenged mr blair to back him - to no avail." [86] A couple of months later there was another article prompted by labour's spin doctors foretelling his departure, "Here is a mystery. Why is it that when the Prime Minister in the commons last week was asked to comment on labour's success in getting the european commission to recommend lifting the ban on british beef, he made no mention of his agriculture minister jack cunningham? Indeed, when encouraged directly by a labour backbencher to give mr. cunningham credit, mr. blair still contrived to avoid doing so. A clue to the above mystery may be found in mr. cunningham's hasty and ill-advised decision to stop people eating beef on the bone. From all accounts it appears this was a unilateral decree by the agriculture minister, which was not first communicated to downing street. Now that the european commission has declared in effect that british beef from younger cattle is BSE-free, it is surely time to recognize jack 'boots' cunningham's ban on eating t-bone steaks for the pointless, fatuous, dictatorial edict it is, and repeal it." [87] Cunningham was moved to a new position in september 1998.

It was pointed out above that what thatcher and major did to protect the beef industry, blair did for the lamb industry. Blair's sacking of jack cunningham was an even greater act of cowardice and servility to the vested interests of pharmers than the sacking of edwina curry - after all, she was only a minister, cunningham was a secretary of state.

2.7.4.12: Public Transport.

John prescott is a keen advocate of reducing Carbon emissions by boosting public transport. The queen's speech opening the autumn 1998 session of parliament contained no decision on reducing road traffic. This was partly because of pressure from rural interests bit it was also partly due to treasury stupidity, "The new white paper on transport, produced by the detr .. at least detr has finally broken the treasury 'hypothecation' link - so that money no longer automatically always has to go to the treasury. Detr proposed that 'money raised from parking charges and road pricing can be earmarked to pay for bus and cycle lanes, improved local rail services and safe routes to school schemes." [88]

Prescott's understanding of climatic issues seems to have grown considerably throughout the 1990s. This indicates a keen intellect keeping up with rapidly changing environmental issues. This contrasts very favourably with other leftie labour politicians who seem preoccupied with propaganda debates which raged in the 1980s, and also with slimey, disreputable labour politicians like peter mandelson whose disinterest in environmental issues reveals them as precious bimbos.

2.7.4.13: More Subsidies for the Welfare Benefit Scroungers: Blair Promises a Free Market in Everything but Pharmers' Subsidies.

Throughout his election campaign tony blair had indicated his support for gatt and the removal of all barriers to trade. As a result of the countryside march, blair suddenly went very quiet about abolishing subsidies to rural scroungers. Pharmers clearly began to realize that blair was a soft touch and kept up their pressure on him during the labour conference in october 1998, "Nearly 8,000 farmers lobbied last month's labour conference in the hope of securing help." [89] This led to further welfare benefits being made available to these scroungers, "The government yesterday threw hard hit farmers a £120 million lifeline but warned their future could be secured only by a shake-up in european agriculture. Mr Brown accepted farmers had suffered from a marked deterioration in business as well as poor weather that had delayed the sale of their animals to an already over-crowded market. The package comes on top of other aid, worth £150 million, provided in recent months. Farmers get about £2.3 billion a year through e.u. common agriculture policy arrangements. Help with anti-bse measures accounted for another £1.3 billion help over the last two years. (Tim yeo pointed out that this was the) "second farm rescue package in a year" .. The council for the protection of rural england said farmers needed to be supported as "stewards of the countryside"." [90]

2.7.5: Conclusions.

The media was transfixed by the countryside movement's march in london. If ironies abounded a few months earlier when both the miners and the pharmers were simultaneously asking for compensation to protect their industries, they weren't in short supply on this march either. Many people confessed they didn't know what the march was about. Some thought it was an opportunity for country folk to protest about particular issues - from the green belt, Fox hunting, right of access, etc, although as one commentator pointed out, if this was a march about the lack of rural services then it would be the first time in history that rich pharmers had organized a march in defence of the poor.

The march seemed to consist of a polyglot mixture of motives and causes. One of its most significant strands was pharmers' objections to the ban on beef exports, the recent ban on 'beef on the bone', the rising price of (subsidized) meat exports, and, of course, the lack of yet more extravagant subsidies - subsidies for diseased Cattle, subsidies for diseased Sheep, subsidies for diseased meat exports, subsidies for pharmers to sit on their backsides doing nothing, etc. But, above all, the march was about pharmers' fear of losing all their subsidies as a result of the pending changes in the next round of the gatt agreement. It was this that scared pharmers the most. For 18 years the tory government promoted the free market and global free trade but never once sought to impose such rules on their rural supporters. However, when the labour government came into office it was unequivocally committed to the abolition of agricultural subsidies. This would cause huge changes to the countryside dwarfing all other factors. Pharmers in this country, just as in america, had been complaining about welfare spongers for decades and insisting the government should do something to curb such extravagance but now the pharming community was being forced to face up to the prospect of life without their own super-extravagant welfare benefits. They'd been telling the poor to stand on their own feet for ages and now the country's biggest scroungers were facing up to the prospect of having to do this themselves and they didn't like it.

The threat of free trade in agricultural products, which is supposed to be finalized in 1999, sparked off rural fears not only in brutland but in many other european countries. Television news broadcasts on the countryside march strangely neglected to mention that on the same day there were similar protests by pharmers in italy and brussels protesting against proposed reductions in cap's colossal £30 billion subsidies. The brutish pharmers who supported the tories' anti-european ideology during the 1990s now demanded that europe should protect them from a labour government which seemed to be intent on carrying through thatcherite free market reforms of their ailing, grossly inefficient, not forgetting barbaric, industries.

Perhaps the biggest irony of all, however, was that rural folk needn't have worried about the election of a labour government. One of the most unexpected consequences of the labour party's victory in the 1997 general election was the election of a substantial number of labour mps from rural constituencies. The labour party has always been more oriented towards urban areas but the election of a large number of rural labour mps meant the government couldn't afford to ignore these mps who were determined to try and protect the interests of their rural supporters. This has had a significant effect on a number of labour party policies.

One of the reasons for the upsurge of ruralism after the election was that ruralities were beginning to realize they were becoming more and more useless, more and more redundant, more and more parasitic. Pharmers have always regarded themselves as the backbone of society. They have regarded themselves with enormous self-respect and believed they were entitled to the privileges they have bestowed upon themselves over the centuries for all the hard work and toil carried out by their cheap labourers. Unfortunately for them, increasing numbers of urban people are vegetarian and don't want pharmers toxic, disease-ridden products and are sick of subsidizing their murderous activities. Ruralites' protests are lamentations for the loss of respect, esteem, and social status they once enjoyed throughout history.