Farming’s voice is struggling to find a clear message about the problems it is facing. Their voice is lost in a noisy media and is not attracting any serious public attention. The greatest challenge for farming over the next few decades will be to get their voice heard.

Farming’s voice tries to squeeze through the different types of media. At the local level it takes the form of articles in magazines and newspapers. But they come across as either a series of grumblings about farming life, promoting local farm shops, which for many people facing the current living crisis is impossible, or lecturing along the lines of ‘without farmers producing food where would you be?’ On social media, TikTokers are posting cute images of animals and misty mornings across the fields, or reminiscing about the ‘good old days’ which based on my experience were rarely good! Then there are those with a large media presence such as Jeremy Clarkson who with his Didley Squat farm has shown the battle that farmers have with bureaucracy but I doubt whether his efforts will sweep any of it away. Amongst the major broadcasters, there is a muddle of voices. BBC’s Radio 4 Farming Today has very little good news which confirms the view that there is never a happy farmer, and Countryfile, which gives a chocolate box presentation of farming. All of these voices fail to show that farming is struggling to overthrow images of its past whilst being slowly crushed between the supermarkets and the heavy handed bureaucracy of the government.

Farming sits at the heart of a very complex food system. How all of the parts of the system interact has been described by the work of Henry Dimbleby in his book Ravenous: How to get ourselves and our planet into shape. He shows in clear detail how the food system impacts on both our health and the climate crisis and how it must change. On top of the complexity of the food system, farming comes under added pressures from lots of different groups who keep banging on about the problems they create but don’t have any solutions other than ‘further discussions with government and farmers’ Then there are groups such as the NFU who seem to be in fire fighting mode and making only glancing blows on government policy and public perception. On top of all of this the government throws in a few reports reviewing topics such as fairness and transparency across sector supply chains or their latest ‘greenwashing’ initiative such as Nature Markets which is trying to turn nature into a market so that private investment will reverse tens of years of decline. If that was not enough then there is the fluctuations of world food prices that can wreck farming’s finances by a few twitches in the wrong direction. It is a wonder that farmers ever get out of bed!

It is against this background that farming has to find a stronger voice so that it can influence the major discussions that are being held about our future. Following on from the end of the second world war, farming started to go down the route of mechanisation, for justifiable reasons at the time, which started to separate us from the land. Farming’s voice needs to reconnect us with the food that arrives on our plates. There are signs that help is at hand with initiatives such as Just Farmers which tries to enable farmers to use their voice for positive change. Then there are local initiatives such as Regather that are challenging the current food system. But a lot more needs to be done.

What we eat and how it is produced is increasingly becoming very important. Farming needs to find a strong voice that reconnects the with the public, whether as consumers or voters, to manage the change that it will go through so that we can stop the nose dive into oblivion.

Imagine the situation where your neighbour keeps parking in front of your drive or the fence between your properties is falling down. You take some photos of the situation and within a few clicks, you get an answer that gives you your legal rights and what to do next. Daydreaming? Maybe not.

In a previous post I had to read up on the law relating to renting. It was like wading through treacle and even if I had spent a solid month reading the documents I would have still been drowning. But with the hype around Artificial Intelligence (AI) I was struck by a thought - why can’t it answer some of my questions. So I gave it a go. Starting with a simple question: my landlord is trying to evict me what should I do? Although it politely reminded me it wasn’t a lawyer, the best it came back with was the process that I should follow. I tried another, maybe a more contentious question: if I travel to the UK as an unaccompanied child from Syria will I be allowed into the UK? I had reached its limit and it reminded me that it didn’t have access to real time information or current immigration policy. The answers were of no help but as the technology develops will the day come when it is as slick Perry Mason?

AI has been lurking in the corridors of academia for some time but in recent years, with the reduction in computing and data storage costs, it is everywhere. There is a lot of complex technology behind AI but the basic idea is straight forward. The system is learns from looking through as much data as possible on a subject. When a question is asked then it searches through what it has learned and gives an answer that is close enough to plausable. The big step forward came with systems such as ChatGPT when a user can ‘chat’ to the system as if it were their best mate.

So how could an AI Lawyer be built? First we need data and in the UK there are mega tonnes of legal documents. Basically the UK is composed of two types of law: Statue Law which is what the politicians discuss and eventually vote for in Parliament, and Case Law is where a Judge interprets the application of the statute law. The earliest bill that is still enforced is from 1267 from the reign of King Henry III and is a collection of laws that addressed various issues relating to property rights. Today, Parliament can pass up to 50 new laws in a year. For Case Law there is even more produced each year. So there is enough data to build an AI Legal system.

What are the advantages of such a system? Obviously the type of question raised at the beginning of this post could be answered by pulling together the appropriate pieces of statute law and case law and suggest a process to resolving the problem. Imagine a screen popping up at court and winning a case. Now that would make the news! Another advantage of such a system would be that new laws going through Parliament could be checked against possible situations. For example the situation with the unaccompanied child described above could be checked against the proposed law to make sure that the outcome would meet the values that we hold as a country are being met. Finally, the system could be used to rationalise the current laws by removing duplication and checking against inconsistencies, which I’m sure must exist, and therefore simplifying our legal system.

Of course there will be criticism of an AI Lawyer, in particular how accurate it would be - will it make mistakes? But the answer to this challenge would be to compare it to a human lawyer who I’m sure make mistakes. Anyway, the AI Lawyer could be asked to produce the laws that it used to arrive at the actions it recommended so that it could be checked.

AI is fast becoming a reality. It will will start to replace many of the activities that are carried out by specialists or experts and make it accessible to the majority of people. The legal profession have got wind of the impact of AI and are quickly trying to use it to help them. However, this could be a rearguard action because AI has the potential to replace many of them. But more important is for people to have access to the laws that are being made on their behalf by politicians. The rule of law is fundamental in an advancing democracy. An AI Lawyer would place the law within a few key strokes of everybody which must be a good thing for how we live.

Recently an email dropped into my inbox from The Big Issue. It was asking for my support for their Big Futures Campaign which required me to send a preprepared email to my local MP. No problem - click and off it went. What happened next gave some important lessons about campaigning by email.

The Big Issue is running a campaign to improve the Renters (Reform) Bill that is currently going through Parliament. The Bill is targeted at stopping no-fault evictions which is one of the leading drivers of homelessness. Although the bill removes Section 21 of the old Housing act, the mechanism used for no-fault evictions, the campaign points out that it is still riddled with loopholes that will allow landlords to evict tenants without a good reason.

We have been renters in the past and our experience has been mixed. During the recent renting of a house we had a sharp reminder of how little, if any, rights a renter has. The landlord installed a heat pump that caused over two months of disruption which included two weeks without any heating. When I complained about the situation through the letting agent and sought advice from Citezans Advice it turned out that there was nothing we could do about the disruption. When I was asked to get involved with The Big Issue’s campaign about limiting the powers of landlords I didn’t think twice about pressing the send button. The message I received from my MP said that he would reply within a week. One week went past. Two weeks went past and still nothing. I started to wonder why an MP promised to do something and then do nothing. But more importantly I asked myself: what does an MP do?

Rather than ranting about MPs in this post I decided to investigate how they represent their constituents. From Parliament’s web site it states: “When Parliament is sitting (meeting), MPs generally spend their time working in the House of Commons. This can include raising issues affecting their constituents, attending debates and voting on new laws. This can either be by asking a question of a government minister on your behalf or supporting and highlighting particular campaigns which local people feel strongly about.” In their constituency, MPs often hold a ‘surgery’ in their office, where local people can come along to discuss any matters that concern them. Most MPs are also members of committees, which look at issues in detail, from government policy and new laws, to wider topics like human rights. In all fairness my MP probably gets hundreds of emails each day touching on issues such as the cost of living crisis or the state of the NHS. However, this issue formed part of his parties manifesto and therefore I felt a reply along the lines of “we are delivering a manifesto commitment” would have been the minimal response. Then cynicism set in. I wondered how many people in his constituency were renters. But trying to find any real data was difficult. The best that I could find was an old Housing Report that suggested that there was about 17% people who were in private rented accommodation and they were probably not voters for his party. Therefore this issue more than likely fell into his ‘not important box’. After another week went past I resent the email, received the same reply, and to date he has not been in contact.

Just in case he got back I thought that I had better be clearer on the issues that the campaign was raising. I read through the Renters (Reform) Bill and went back to the Housing Act 1988 to check section 21. Both documents are a heavy read but I couldn’t find any obvious loop holes. I contacted the people behind The Big Issue’s campaign who are the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which includes big names like Shelter and Crisis, to find out more about the loop holes in the new Bill. But guess what? - they didn’t reply either!

What have I learned about armchair campaigning? First, investigate the issue properly: why is it important? who are affected by it? and gather all of the information from all sides of the argument to get a better perspective of the issue. Second, ask myself about my personal commitment to the campaign? There are many worthy causes but it is better to focus on the one where I have significant personal experience and where I can add my skills and knowledge. Thirdly, how effective is the campaign? Will I be a voice among many i.e. sending an email or can I get more involved to make a difference.

In my early career, which was many years ago, email was a new technology. I thought it was a great invention and would fire off lots of them across the company where I worked. One day my boss pulled me into his office and in no short terms told me to stop using emails. If the issue was important then I should either visit the person directly or pick up the phone. My recent experience has reminded me of his advice. Most MPs hold surgeries therefore the next time a campaign comes though my email that I feel sufficiently passionate about, there will be a knock on their door.

Waking up to some expert on the radio analysing the state of the economy is never a good start to the day. They are mostly negative and don’t tell me what I already could have guessed. During a recent discussion, I was reminded of a government minister’s comment about experts.

In 2016 Michael Gove, the then Justice Minister, was interviewed by Faisal Islam about the case for the UK leaving the EU. During the interview he was misquoted as saying that the British people “have had enough of experts”. The quote spread through the media like wildfire. He later clarified the quote in a follow up interview where he said “… people have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms that have got things so wrong in the past.” He went on to discuss how the consensus on an issue should be challenged and tested and that things should not be taken simply on trust because of someone’s position.

Experts are important. They study a subject over a long period of time and with experience they can solve complex problems. There are many examples ranging from doctors and surgeons to plumbers and electricians. Without these experts life would be very difficult if not painful. But there is another type of expert that pops up in the media who adds very little to improving our lives. A good example is in economics. They never give any insight into how an economy works or better still how it could be improved. They can hide behind technical terms that require Google, or ChatGPT, to translate. I have yet to find a clear definition of ‘productivity’ never mind any ideas of how it affects everyday living or how it can be improved. I have lost count of the number of times I have contacted an expert in economics asking for more information about their subject and been met by silence ( yes I have checked my spam folder ). I can only conclude that silence means that they have no time for the general public which is ironic because they are usually pronouncing something that may affect our lives.

Michael Groves is correct in that experts should be challenged. But more specifically they should be challenged about how they improve peoples lives. In the case of doctors, surgeons and plumbers the effectiveness of their impact is obvious: we recover from an illness or the toilet has stopped leaking. But when the we question the insights of an expert in economics we are usually dismissed as not knowing enough to understand the complex issue. However, when a person in a position of power asks a question then they are forced to give an answer. One of the most effective challenges to expertise was made by Queen Elizabeth II. When she was touring The Bank of England, during the Financial Crisis, she asked: why did nobody see it coming? which received a lot of shuffling and looking at the floor. The Queen was asking a question that we all wanted an answer to. It took over four years for the Bank of England to come up with an attempt at an answer!.

I would propose the following criteria for any expert: how do you know that your expertise is understood by the wider public so that it can be challenged? and how has the application of your expertise improved peoples lives? If the government followed this criteria when distributing tax payers money to developing expertise in a subject then we may start to get value for money, and I would get a better start to the day.

Will poverty ever be made history? Lord Bird hopes so and in an attempt to eradicate poverty he has created an all party group in Westminster to tackle the problem. However, the group must ask some searching questions about previous government policies so that the same mistakes will not be repeated.

The all party group’s stated aim is to: “… bring entrepreneurialism to the heart of government, looking at how funding structures could break the cycle of poverty rather than reinforce it. We work with business-minded organisations invested in creating long-term solutions that lift people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency.” For many years Lord Bird has argued that instead of pouring taxpayer’s money into tackling the symptoms of poverty, it should solve the more difficult social problems at their root cause. He illustrates his argument with the statistic that 80% of the social pound is spent on helping the poor get through that day or that month. His approach to eliminating poverty aligns with its aim of the The Big Issue, which he started in 1991, to give people a “hand up, not a hand out”. In general, tax papers money should be spent on developing peoples potential so that they can contribute to the rest of society rather than keeping them stuck in poverty.

A study from the US reviewed their government’s anti-poverty policies. There were some successes but they have left children more exposed to poverty and with an estimated 12.5 mn people in “deep poverty”. I’m sure that it is a similar performance for the UK. Reviewing previous government initiatives would give insights into what works and what doesn’t work. The lack of success will be complex and could include: targeting the wrong problem, lack of real commitment to the policy, not enough resources and changes in governments. But there maybe other issues such using the wrong approach to develop a policy. For example why not ask the people who are in poverty what would help?

However, care must be taken that looking back doesn’t get stuck in “paralysis by analysis” and it takes too long. There is an emergency in people’s living standards and new solutions need to be found urgently. One way that might help is applying the framework developed by Lord Bird to classify the impact of different initiatives. It is called PECC: Prevention, Emergency, Coping and Cure. This could be applied to any policy review to identify its aim and then ask what worked well and what didn’t.

Poverty has cast its shadow over peoples lives for hundreds of years. If we are to make it history then we must look back and learn from the effectiveness of previous policies that succeeded rather than repeating the same mistakes.