Originally from: MediaVets
                        
Val

You ask whether those farmers who didn't want to lose their stock were in the majority and if so, why their voices were not heard.

Who listens to farmers? Certainly not the government – why should they? Farmers are electorally insignificant in this country and therefore farming has always been used for political expediency.

....

Yet in not so distant past farmers had a lot of influence. An during the FMD epidemic the NFU said to represent an even smaller proportion of farmers had a significant influence on policy – esp. WRT rejection of vaccination.

And many other 'minority interests' which are also 'electorally insignificant do get listened to and have influence on policy.

My feeling is that like minded farmers need to organise so they can speak thorugha focused 'channel' with one voice – that's the way other minorities achieve results I think.
........

I am certain that the majority of farmers would have chosen not to lose their stock – healthy stock, killed in such a brutal way goes right against the grain for anyone who practices animal husbandry for a living – I choose the words to differentiate farmers from dealers, who are stock keepers of a different ilk.
........

Good point and I appreciate that many farmers lacked affiliation to any sort of organisation that could represent their collective views/resistance WRT the policy adopted towards the FMD epidemic. Until this is remedied I fear they will remain isolated and vulnerable.It has now been proved beyond doubt surely that they cannot rely on Govt always to act in their (the famers we are talking about) best interest, as perhaps they did in the 'glory days' post WW2 and later.

Regards,

Andrew