Property as Theft and the silence of the lambs ........
In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels quoting Proudhon declared that 'Property is Theft'.
A day spent discussing the future of UK Agricultural Policy in the wake of Brexit as part of the Diocese of Newcastle's rural strategy raised this particular quotation in my mind at least.
It seems that whatever future agricultural policy the UK might develop, always assuming of course that post Brexit there is a United Kingdom, will inevitably depend on the co-operation of those who own the land.
Water is of course the key example.
Whilst in Scotland Water is managed by a public company answerable to the Scottish Government, a considerable percentage of the 21 English Water Companies are foreign owned with Chinese and Australian and Canadian and French Companies owning our water supply.
Northumbria Water for example is owned by the Hong Kong based Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings.
This privatisation of a 'public good' i.e. water is a direct result of Tory Party Policy over the years which a former Prime Minister and doyen of the Tory Party, Harold McMillan, characterised as 'selling off the family jewels'.
Water is a key example, but increasingly agricultural land is being transferred into private ownership often with private foreign based purchasers acquiring large tracts of land.
Land rather than constituting a 'public good' becomes a 'private asset' people speak of land as being 'banked', all of which raises a question over the deliverability of the strategy which is being developed whereby our agricultural strategy in the years after Brexit will be based on the concept of payment for what are being defined as public goods: food safety, environmental improvements, public accessibility.
There is a presumably apocryphal tale of the Magistrate, probably Scottish of course, who sets the Poacher Free after the legal argument has been pressed based on the Biblical injunction that the 'world and all that is therein is the Lord's'.
No doubt the poacher returned home accompanied by his lawyer, joyfully singing Psalm 24.
Later in the day we were offered a theological reflection, not on the day's discussions but on the Diocesan Rural Strategy which was offered, a la Blue Peter as, here we have one I made earlier.
The reflection was well received, but I was disappointed by it.
Certainly Adam and Eve were figures in a landscape, a theme which informed the reflection accompanied as it was by a visual aide showing a painting of: figures in a landscape.
But their naming of the animals was of itself an acceptance of the responsibility of and for just stewardship by humankind.
Just stewardship of the earth, in partnership with God, so that all that is held and worked is held and worked to ensure that it contributes to the common good, the good of the many not the few.
This is why in the years that have passed often there have been no figures in the landscape because those who owned the land found that the easiest way to increase profitability was to remove the figures and introduce more profitable animal and cereal crops.
Histories and Herstories are written by the winners. It will be fascinating to read in the future the His/Her story of Brexit.
How the land will flourish I'm not sure, but in my small group I raised the question of whether fields full of spring lamb is a 'public good'?
If it is will the public continue to pay for it if the market determines that it is an unprofitable venture into the future and that simply importing cheaper frozen lamb from abroad at WTO rates will mean greater profit.
I recall the smoking pyres of animal carcasses burning in the fields as I drove through Cumbria during the outbreak of foot and mouth and during the following spring only silence in the fields. As my daughter, not only a farmers wife but with an Agricultural Degree, observed it was a heartbreaking time.
The only sound the silence of the lambs.
A day spent discussing the future of UK Agricultural Policy in the wake of Brexit as part of the Diocese of Newcastle's rural strategy raised this particular quotation in my mind at least.
It seems that whatever future agricultural policy the UK might develop, always assuming of course that post Brexit there is a United Kingdom, will inevitably depend on the co-operation of those who own the land.
Water is of course the key example.
Whilst in Scotland Water is managed by a public company answerable to the Scottish Government, a considerable percentage of the 21 English Water Companies are foreign owned with Chinese and Australian and Canadian and French Companies owning our water supply.
Northumbria Water for example is owned by the Hong Kong based Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings.
This privatisation of a 'public good' i.e. water is a direct result of Tory Party Policy over the years which a former Prime Minister and doyen of the Tory Party, Harold McMillan, characterised as 'selling off the family jewels'.
Water is a key example, but increasingly agricultural land is being transferred into private ownership often with private foreign based purchasers acquiring large tracts of land.
Land rather than constituting a 'public good' becomes a 'private asset' people speak of land as being 'banked', all of which raises a question over the deliverability of the strategy which is being developed whereby our agricultural strategy in the years after Brexit will be based on the concept of payment for what are being defined as public goods: food safety, environmental improvements, public accessibility.
There is a presumably apocryphal tale of the Magistrate, probably Scottish of course, who sets the Poacher Free after the legal argument has been pressed based on the Biblical injunction that the 'world and all that is therein is the Lord's'.
No doubt the poacher returned home accompanied by his lawyer, joyfully singing Psalm 24.
Later in the day we were offered a theological reflection, not on the day's discussions but on the Diocesan Rural Strategy which was offered, a la Blue Peter as, here we have one I made earlier.
The reflection was well received, but I was disappointed by it.
Certainly Adam and Eve were figures in a landscape, a theme which informed the reflection accompanied as it was by a visual aide showing a painting of: figures in a landscape.
But their naming of the animals was of itself an acceptance of the responsibility of and for just stewardship by humankind.
Just stewardship of the earth, in partnership with God, so that all that is held and worked is held and worked to ensure that it contributes to the common good, the good of the many not the few.
This is why in the years that have passed often there have been no figures in the landscape because those who owned the land found that the easiest way to increase profitability was to remove the figures and introduce more profitable animal and cereal crops.
Histories and Herstories are written by the winners. It will be fascinating to read in the future the His/Her story of Brexit.
How the land will flourish I'm not sure, but in my small group I raised the question of whether fields full of spring lamb is a 'public good'?
If it is will the public continue to pay for it if the market determines that it is an unprofitable venture into the future and that simply importing cheaper frozen lamb from abroad at WTO rates will mean greater profit.
I recall the smoking pyres of animal carcasses burning in the fields as I drove through Cumbria during the outbreak of foot and mouth and during the following spring only silence in the fields. As my daughter, not only a farmers wife but with an Agricultural Degree, observed it was a heartbreaking time.
The only sound the silence of the lambs.
Comments
Post a Comment