The EU boost for dairy farmers that isn't

A recent news item, and its reporting, caught my eye. BBC News Reported that;

EU boosts aid for dairy farmers

Dairy farmers in the European Union are to receive 280m euros (£255m) in aid, says the EU's farm commissioner.

The decision follows weeks of protests by thousands of farmers over the low price of milk, including the spraying of milk onto fields.

This is an important news story. Sadly, the BBC failed to offer substantial discussion of the context or implications of agricultural subsidies.

Here are a few things that they failed to adequately address:

1) Agricultural subsidies harm developing nations

Subsidies have a double impact on poor farmers in poor countries: farmers are undercut and swamped by the flood of cheap subsidised imports. Local exporters get rock bottom prices when they try to sell their crops onto depressed world markets

2) The largest payouts go to multinationals, not farmers.

While most people still believe that Europe's agricultural subsidies have been used to protect farmers, particularly small farmers, it is now emerging that among the main beneficiaries are large multinationals.

The CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] accounted for nearly half of the total EU budget in 2004, costing taxpayers €43.6bn. While the largest part of the CAP budget was indeed made up of direct aid to farmers (€30bn), most of that went to the largest farmers, and nearly €14bn went on other CAP schemes such as export refunds to large companies, storage payments and BSE payments to large-scale renderers and abattoirs. The UK received €4bn in agricultural payments in 2004. [...]

The largest UK recipients of money include companies such as Tate & Lyle, Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft and a host of manufacturers of bulk animal fats, sugars and refined starches. Further FoI [Freedom of Information] requests reveal a similar pattern of the largest individual payments going to multinationals in other European countries. [...]

The largest recipient of payments in the UK for 2003-4 was Tate & Lyle and its subsidiaries, which took more than £227m over two years from the CAP. Meadow Foods, a leading manufacturer of bulk fats and proteins for ice cream, spreads, sports drinks, processed meats and confectionery, received nearly £26m in the year 2003-4. Other large dairy manufacturers supplying the processed food industry dominate the list of top recipients of money paid by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which administers CAP payments in this country.

Our detailed analysis of the full list of RPA payments has also unearthed a number of anomalies. They include:

• Gate Gourmet, the airline catering company whose industrial dispute brought British Airways to a halt this summer, received more than £500,000 from the CAP last year for flying tiny, individual helpings of milk and sugar into international airspace, thereby qualifying for an export subsidy.

• Premier Foods, the company at the heart of the Sudan 1 contamination crisis, received over £60,000, believed to be in export subsidies.

• Eton college received £2,652 last year but admitted to us that what it was for was "a bit of a mystery". Although it tried, it was unable to obtain information for us from the RPA to explain the payment.

• Drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Boots, Reckitt, and ACS Dobfar, received substantial payments for using sugar in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

3) The European Milk Board do not want subsidies

This brings us back to the BBC's report, which made broad statements such as;

Most of the EU's member states - including France and Germany - had been pressing for aid after the global economic downturn reduced demand.

And

EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she was forced to "empty her pockets" to meet the demands of 21 of 27 member states seeking an emergency fund for dairy farmers.

The report closed with remarks

These EU market interventions help support dairy prices.

That's not what the European Milk Board think, their preferred solution is to "limit milk production" and to "set up a monitoring mechanism, in which milk producers, consumers, dairies and politicians take joint responsibility and analyse the market, with the aim of bringing milk production in line with demand." As for the protests,

The motto of the rally is "No subsidies in the milk sector, only flexible production regulation"

In regards to the subsidies themselves, the president of the European Milk Board, Romuald Schaber, said,

It makes no sense when ministers talk about money, which then flows into the milk sector in the form of subsidies with little impact. Flexible production controls represent no extra burden to the taxpayer and can be an effective way of creating milk prices which are fair both to producers and consumers.

I'm sure that by now you get the point, so I won't dwell on the environmental impact, welfare concerns or GM issues associated with milk production. (Or, that the people making the decision, the European Commission, are unelected.) When the best response to falling milk prices would be to reduce production quotas, yet the EU offer money with no details of reform, mainstream news media organisations report the story as though the EU had given farmers what they want.

THE BALANCE OF POWER

The latest article at Media Lens

Journalists who criticise powerful interests can be attacked for their 'bias', for revealing their prejudices. On the other hand, as we will see in the examples below, almost no-one protests, or even notices, the lack of balance in patriotic articles reporting on the experience of British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the credibility of British and American elections, or on claims that the West is spreading democracy across the Third World. Then, notions of patriotism, loyalty, the need to support 'our boys', make 'balance' seem disloyal, disrespectful; an indication, in fact, that a journalist is 'biased.'

The media provide copious coverage of state-sponsored memorials commemorating the 50th, 60th, 65th anniversaries of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Arnhem, the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of the Atlantic, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, and so on. Even the 200th anniversary of The Battle of Trafalgar was a major news item. Remembrance Sunday, Trooping The Colour, Beating The Retreat, the Fleet Review are all media fixtures. The military is of course happy to supply large numbers of troops and machines for these dramatic flypasts, parades and reviews.

On June 11, 2005, senior BBC news presenter, Huw Edwards, provided the commentary for Britain's Trooping The Colour military parade, describing it as "a great credit to the Irish Guards". Imagine if Edwards had added:

"While one can only be impressed by the discipline and skill on show in these parades, critics have of course warned against the promotion of patriotic militarism. The Russian novelist Tolstoy, for one, observed:

"'The ruling classes have in their hands the army, money, the schools, the churches and the press. In the schools they kindle patriotism in the children by means of histories describing their own people as the best of all peoples and always in the right. Among adults they kindle it by spectacles, jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic press.'" (Tolstoy, Government is Violence - Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, Phoenix Press, 1990, p.82)

Edwards would not have been applauded for providing this 'balance'. He would have been condemned far and wide as a crusading crackpot, and hauled before senior BBC management.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury recently offered the mildest of criticisms of the invasion of Iraq in a sermon in St Paul's Cathedral, the Sun newspaper responded: 'Archbishop of Canterbury's war rant mars troops tribute.' [...]

The Sun's article was archived under "news/campaigns/our_boys". As Tolstoy would have understood, the Sun is in fact a bitter class enemy of "our boys". It is a rich man's propaganda toy parading as a trusty pal of 'ordinary people'.

Read more at Media lens

Witness William Hague being 'perfectly clear'.

Labour & press relations

Andrew Neil’s blog, which on the main criticised what he saw as Darling’s optimistic economic forecasting, made an interesting point about media relations.

One thing is clear to me: this Budget may or may not mark the end of New Labour but it certainly marks the end of the Murdoch newspapers' dalliance with New Labour.

If this is the case, which I suspect it is, then this surely is the end of the Labour government’s reign. The papers’ response to the budget suggests so too.

One thing stands in Brown’s favour, the declining circulation of Murdoch’s papers. Although by even mentioning that I feel that I have overstated the case. Although the might of Murdoch’s press empire might not be what it once was, his influence is still immense.

Andrew Neil on the 50% income tax rate for higher earners

Andrew Neil on the 50% income tax rate for higher earners - 'Worse than we feared?'

The independent Institute of Fiscal Studies uses a more dynamic model which rightly assumes some high earners won't (for example, they might leave the country, stop working or pay themselves anything above £150,000 in tax-free pension contributions). It recently concluded that the proposed 45% would not bring in ANY extra revenue and indeed might actually generate less. We will wait with interest to see what it makes of the new 50% rate.

Threats that high earners will leave the country are often dismissed as propaganda and no doubt they often are. But a 50% top rate of income tax means Britain will have the third highest top rate in the industrialised world -- only Sweden (55%), Denmark (59%) and Netherlands (52%) will be higher while America (35%), Canada (29%), Hong Kong (16%) and Dubai (0%) could start to look even more tempting to Britain's high fliers, especially now the streets of the City are no longer paved with gold and there are mumbles among them that the Budget of 2009 represents the end of New Labour.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, you might say, and if we see the back of some of the bankers who've brought us to our knees you might be right. But the top 5% of income tax payers account for half of all income tax receipts. You don't want to lose too many of them when you're already planning to borrow £800 billion.

Budget talk and press management

Impressive political manoeuvring from Labour – they have managed to ask a questions of the Conservatives that they will find difficult to answer. In Nick Robinson’s view:

[A] new 50% top tax rate for those earning over £150,000 is designed to put the Tories on the spot - do they back it or pledge to reverse it? Since it will be introduced before the next election, they will have to say.

If they attempt to swerve this political trap they will face criticism from some in their own party and in the Tory press who will demand that they protect "our people".

He continued …

Stealth tax rises are out. Overt tax hikes on the rich are in.

Why?
• In the name of fairness.
• To cheer Labour's supporters.
• To wrong-foot their opponents.
• To distract the media.
• Oh, and to raise money (although the Institute of Fiscal Studies has questioned whether increasing the top tax rate will raise much).

Their hope is that tomorrow's headlines will be dominated by questions about Labour's breach of their manifesto pledge and that the Tories will be asked for months to come whether they will reverse that tax rise or not.

What they know is that opinion polls show that higher taxes on the rich are now popular in the way they once were not.

What they also know is that David Cameron and George Osborne will come under pressure from the Tory press and Tory bloggers to promise to reverse this measure.

What they also know is that that is a more comfortable place to be politically than answering questions about why the chancellor's just confirmed the deepest recession, the fastest rise in unemployment and the biggest rise in borrowing since the war.
[…]

stealth spending cuts have replaced stealth tax rises as the principal tool of the Treasury. […]

stats suggests that that headline grabbing rise in the top rate of tax will actually raise less than increased fuel duty (up 2p a litre in September) and the squeeze on public spending.

And something that will not be too high on the news agenda - the terror plot that probably wasn't.

For more on the 2009 budget see

• 'Andrew Neil on the 50% income tax rate for higher earners'
  
• 'Labour & press relations'
• 'The Guardian columnists' view of the budget'

Crass journalism muddles already murky understanding.

UPDATE

The Guardian article I criticise now appears on the Guardian website in an edited form having recognised its inaccuracies and been corrected.  It now contains the following clarification:

This clarification was published on Tuesday 21 April 2009.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, deviated from his prepared speech to the UN racism conference, omitting the phrase "the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust". The original text was given to journalists by the Iranian mission to the UN, and was included in the report below in good faith.

The post quotes parts of the Guardian article that have subsequently been corrected.

My original post read as follows

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a contentious figure. Contemptible statements have been attributed to him – and contested. In short, many view him as an anti-Semite. This claim emerges primarily from his pronouncements on the Holocaust and Israel. He allegedly denies the Holocaust and argues that Israel should be ‘wiped of the map’. The claims made in his defence are that his words were poorly translated, taken out of context, exaggerated and manipulated. This is certainly true, to some extent.

It is interesting to note that even the Guardian, arguably the most left leaning British broadsheet, opted not to report the apparent applause for parts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations. They preferred to focus on the less appealing aspects of his speech.

When he did speak, he was even more vitriolic than they had feared. In a rambling polemic, Ahmadinejad questioned the reality of the Holocaust, accused Israel of genocide and spoke of a wide-ranging Zionist conspiracy, triggering pandemonium and a coordinated walkout by Britain and other EU states.

This is not true. Ahmadinejad had not ‘questioned the reality of the Holocaust’ ‘triggering pandemonium and a coordinated walkout by Britain and other EU states’. If he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, it was after the walkout. If he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, I am yet to find evidence as an entire transcript is not yet available*. The BBC news ‘In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech’ provides no evidence of Holocaust denial in this speech. It is worth reiterating, if he did question the reality of the Holocaust in this speech, it was after the walkout.

It is true that Ahmadinejad accused Israel of genocide and spoke of a wide-ranging Zionist conspiracy. Talk of genocide of Palestinians came after the walkout had begun.

I am not arguing about the contents of Ahmadinejad’s speech, its merits or its demerits (although I may do at a later date). Nor am I arguing in defence of him or his regime – just type ‘Iran’ into Human Rights Watch to see Iran’s hall of shame. I would welcome greater exposure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s deplorable actions. It is the opportunism and needless exaggeration that I deplore. Crass journalism muddles our already murky understanding. The report should be balanced rather than put through a filter that makes the story less edifying.

For supporting evidence follow the links in - 'Walkout at Iran leader's criticism of Israel'

* See UPDATE below

For more on this story see

• 'The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Durban speech on racism'.

• 'If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments were part of a ‘vitriolic’ ‘rambling polemic’, are the words of Israel's deputy PM better?'

• 'A view on the walkout'

UPDATE

The complete speech is now available on youtube

Walkout at Iran leader's criticism of Israel

See footage of the walkout at Iran leader's speech on racism at UN conference - BBC news - 'Walkout at Iran leader's speech'.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".

He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine." […]

Two protesters, wearing coloured wigs, disrupted the start of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech - followed by a mass walkout of Western delegates.

Al Jazeera - 'Israel criticism sparks UN walkout'

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued,] "The UN security council has stabilised this occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a free hand to continue their crimes," he told delegates at the Durban Review Conference hall in Geneva. [...]

"The Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses ... wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists ... in the US administration, in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies?". Many delegates who remained in the hall applauded Ahmadinejad's comments. […]

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera's correspondent at the conference, said Ahmadinejad had reiterated his views on Israel, especially over its 22-day war on Gaza. He said: "At the time [of the offensive] he said what was going on in Gaza was a genocide ... this was an opportunity for him to say that at a world forum. "There are people in the hall who believe that what Ahmadinejad was saying is correct - that is why there is such a split here." […]

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, condemned Ahmadinejad's "speech of hate" and called for a "firm and united" reaction from the European Union. Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister, said the Iranian leader's comments had "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference ... he made Iran the odd man out".

The speech by Ahmadinejad, who is a frequent critic of Israel and has cast doubt on the extent of the killing of Jews during the Second World War, coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, which begins at sundown on Monday.

The United States, Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, had earlier said they would not attend the conference amid fears Ahmadinejad would use the summit to propagate anti-Semitic views. […]

The UN organised the summit to help heal the wounds left by its last racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, when the US and Israel walked out after Arab states sought to define Zionism as being racist.

The Guardian - 'Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist''.

France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, speaking before Ahmadinejad's speech, said "we will not tolerate any blunder or provocation" from Ahmadinejad, who has referred to the Holocaust as a myth and called for Israel to be "wiped off the pages of history". […]

The Foreign Office said in a statement, also released before the speech: "The United Kingdom has argued strongly for the concluding document to contain adequate language on Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism. We will find unacceptable any attempt to use the Durban process to trivialise or deny the Holocaust, or to renegotiate agreements on the fight against antisemitism." […]

Ahmadinejad's speech and press conference will be carefully scrutinised for his tone towards the US after Barack Obama's recent overtures to Tehran. The Iranian president has ruled out compromise on Iran's nuclear programme, but has occasionally raised hopes of a thaw in US-Iranian relations, as he did yesterday when he insisted that an Iranian-American journalist, sentenced by an Iranian court to eight years in prison on espionage charges, should be guaranteed the full right to defend herself in her appeal. The Iranian government today urged Obama not to comment on the case.

To Carol Thatcher, “That is why it is not on the jam jars – because we have moved on.”

Witness Carol Thatcher being asked whether she regrets "using the word that she did" by Andrew Marr twice. "No" is her obstinate response, at the second time of asking. Her initial response was obfuscatory - she attempted to reposition herself as the victim. She also suggests that plenty of people agree with her. If The Daily Mail agrees with her about political correctness, how could she be wrong? (!). She had over two months to construct a response. The best she could muster was arrogant denial.

Another thought occurred to me after the initial disgust for her misplaced conviction. What was she doing on television? Of course, she should be granted a right of reply, but she has already had many opportunities. What this short clip does not reveal is that she was on there to review newspapers primarily. It is only for the 1 minute 28 seconds that it was even acknowledged that she had been offensive and is unrepentant about it. For the most part Carol Thatcher was treated in a familiar cosy manner.

Although not entirely relevant - here is Stewart Lee’s response to an audience poll that revealed that the majority thought that political correctness had gone mad.

Thank-you Stewart Lee – that makes me feel better.

UPDATE
Since originally writing this post, I have stumbled across Mongoose Chronicles. She offers a spirited assessment of Carol Thatcher’s performance worthy of a link. 'Carol Thatcher disgusts me'

[J]ust because you grew up seeing golliwogs on the side of your jam jar as you sat at your breakfast table with your white, wealthy family and friends, does not entitle you to decide for another group of people what they are and are not allowed to be offended by. […]

I was disgusted by Thatcher in this Andrew Marr interview, because alarmingly, she seems to be part of this club of golliwog collectors who think their quaint little hobby is more valuable than the historical and current subjugation of an entire group of people; and worse, she is also one of those who has assumed the role of victim because The Man wants to take away her right to hurl racial slurs at people. And the rest of us should just get over it so she can have her golliwog fridge magnets and make fun of black people.

Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?

Robert Fisk passionately denunciates the BBC Trust's decision to criticise Jeremy Bowen's coverage of the Middle East.

[The BBC Trust] is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen. [...] If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.

View Article