Sir Nicholas is the laddie who was described unflatteringly by his first wife. Well, that’s not unusual in such cases, there usually is a reason why the digit is placed next to the description. But she did say that sex with him was like being fallen upon by a large wardrobe with a small key in the door. So, one bit of the Churchillian inheritance that didn’t make it through then.
He’s also spent a life in Parliament largely on the basis of being, vaguely, a Churchill. Nothing at all of the maverick there either, as this piece shows. Entirely conventional – and wrong – viewsviews:
Stand up for British farmers against a US invasion of chlorinated chicken and hormone-stuffed beef, says Winston Churchill’s grandson SIR NICHOLAS SOAMES in an urgent message to Ministers
The basic problem with the stance is that it is British consumers, not producers, that we should be defending. And the impact of cheaper food upon consumers is going to be positive, not something to be defended against. He opens with:
We are extraordinarily lucky in this country to be served by some of the most effective and efficient farmers in the world,
Which cannot even be true. UK food prices are higher than world. Therefore the people who produce and provide UK food – still largely, even if only just, farmers in Britain – are thus less efficient than other farmers elsewhere in the world.
British agriculture is renowned throughout the world for its productivity
Can’t be, can it?
So the question is, will Liz Truss and her Department for International Trade do their duty and stand up for British farmers and the public interest, and block the truly dismal prospect of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef?
The thing being – if no one wants those chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef then no one will buy it even if it is legal to import it. Thus, assuming that no one does want it, we do not need a legal ban upon it.
On the other hand, if people do want it and would buy it, why are we denying consumers that – or those – things that they want? The answer being that people like Sir Nicholas don’t think that the proles should be allowed to choose to have something that Sir Nicholas doesn’t think the proles should have.
Actual free trade allows all to gain what it is that they desire. Which is why the people who argue against free trade are those who insist they know better what people should have. Paternalists to be polite about it and oppressors to be im-.
It really is about time that these people grasped the basics of liberty. We free people out here, we consenting adults, we’ll decide what we want and when we want it, thank you. Personally and not collectively. If that turns out to be high farming standards and expensive food then so be it, if cheap as chips and bugger the animals then so be that too. For the game of politics is supposed to be about maximising our ability to pursue our own utility as we see fit – not imposing some moral standards upon us.