Posted in August 2009

The whole strategy of the British State has been that land is far more valuable employed by industry and domiciliary rather than farming (or even wild life come to that). What was more inevitable than there would come a point whereby we did not stand even a notional possibility of feeding ourselves. Now, with that conceit blown out of the water, we are to use GM crops, not because of taste or natural nutritional value, rather because it is the only choice.

GM is over-blown and will reduce choice; the long term affect will be to decimate the gene pool. It is still the case that GM crops may grow in poor soil but any attempt to plough that soil will induce large-scale land erosion.

It may be that France with her larger land mass does not find the CAP restrictive, but what of Britain? She has outstripped her capability, sacrificing independence and making us subservient, vulnerable, to world demand (as with oil and gas). There is a natural population level here and it is long been past.

We have to come to some sort of realistic understanding of what sustainability really means. We are now absolutely certain that wealth is an illusory component, Britain has been over-paying itself for decades, all it took was one final surge from Labour to fire us into penury. Now, to even have half a chance at the comforts of past we are told that having a massive and increasing workforce will mean that we will have to make some sacrifices! What! To be able to afford industry and its massive population we are to live on the State diet?

We are fast becoming Proles, Orks, have it as you will, our individual value diminishes by increases in quantity until we are all expendable. We have insisted on the industry of millions of hands rather than placing the emphasis on ingenuity. Rather than invent a machine that can crop produce, that may have a market elsewhere, we have decided to have thousands of pairs of hands. This is the sort of solution that one would have expected, as seen in Stalin's canal building projects or the flood controls for the Yangtze; it is like revisiting the Dark Ages.

It is a quantum leap, the State defining what we will eat. Will we come to the pass whereby Mondays are bread, Tuesdays cheese, Wednesdays Tofu? Will the memory of recipes and choice soon be placed at the mercy of some overseas power with agricultural space holding Britain to ransom of supplies? What will it avail Great Britain when the money we produce from our declining and challenged industry can not buy food because of ideological barriers rather those of commerce?

The vast housing projects and the determination that to stop immigration is somehow uncivilised or racist, or against our interests, in some inexplicable race for expertise and the fight for some illusory industrial pre-eminence, these are the fatuous arguments. Britain imports as many people as the United States and yet Britain has the land mass of one US State, Oregon. There is a logistical, common sense corollary.

We do not even play to our strengths. had we decided that those places within Britain that had good land for agriculture were to be inviolate to development and building, instead concentrating any population expansion in the less fertile areas. But no. The adoption of Regional Government and its competitive mind-set , the determination to distribute immigrants, to disperse them, has ensured policies that are not too far removed from the scatter-gun. Even the smallest enclave now has to have an action plan for housing and industry despite their infrastructure.

Such demands are making for great problems of communication, welfare care, industrial costs and the availability of amenities. There was a time when we had the Standard Castleford Unit of dysfunction and blight, now we are told that Castleford has been exceeded in all aspects of grossness of expectation by Middlesbrough, one can only imagine what Middlesbrough must be like.

But will this stop the expansion of that place, will that stop the importation of people to that place? One cannot look at agriculture in isolation because the practicality of farming and its meeting of demand cannot be settled upon if the market is not defined. All we do by meeting some figment of a number on the output capacity for farming, increasing it, standardising crops, is that politicians will want to exceed demand, continually play it to the wire and beyond. Industry and the mass employment market is no hedge against the country's bankruptcy as we see today. Better that we seek equilibrium and live within our means and farming is a good place to start.