top of page

Current Most Read

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future
The Rising Crime Rate in the UK: A Crisis in the Criminal Justice System
How to prepare for concert ticket presales and sales on Ticketmaster

Economic Instability and Political Extremism: Then and Now

Part 1: The Parallels of Turbulent Times

History, with all its twists and turns, often feels like a mirror held up to the present. As we explore the turbulent years of 1920–1924 and 2010–2024, one striking thread binds them together: economic instability, coupled with the rise of political extremism, creates fertile ground for upheaval. Yet, by examining the past, we can better understand—and perhaps avoid—the mistakes that shaped history.


Woman in fur coat holds a cigarette in a holder, exhaling smoke. Black and white image with a glamorous, vintage mood.

 

The Economic Struggles of a Century Ago

The world of 1920 was one in recovery mode, but the scars of World War I were fresh. Germany’s economic devastation was particularly profound, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. War reparations, demanded by the Allied powers, placed an unbearable burden on the German economy. By 1923, hyperinflation reached a point where citizens carried wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread. The collapse of the German mark wasn’t just an economic event—it was a societal trauma.


Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, recovery looked different. The United States entered the Roaring Twenties, a decade of unprecedented economic growth, yet one that masked growing inequalities. The wealth gap widened as industrial expansion benefited the upper echelons of society, leaving rural communities and lower-income workers struggling to keep up.


This contrast of roaring prosperity and crippling despair set the stage for future instability. In Germany, it created a breeding ground for anger and desperation, leading to the rise of radical ideologies.


 

Modern Echoes: 2010–2024

Fast-forward to the 2010s and the parallels are hard to ignore. The global financial crisis of 2008 had left economies reeling. Governments implemented austerity measures to stabilize finances, but the social toll was high. Unemployment soared in countries like Greece and Spain, and public services were slashed.


Then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought the global economy to a grinding halt. Governments scrambled to inject life into their economies through massive stimulus packages, but these measures came at a cost. Inflation surged globally, with households struggling to keep up with skyrocketing food and energy prices. The economic aftershocks have deepened inequalities—just as they did a century ago.


Steam train crossing an arched stone viaduct, releasing white smoke. Scenic backdrop of hills and trees. Black and white image.

The Role of Economic Despair in Political Extremism

In the early 1920s, desperation made radical ideologies appealing. Benito Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome marked the birth of fascism as a political force. In Germany, Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 may have failed, but it signalled the rise of the Nazi Party. These movements thrived by exploiting economic hardship and national humiliation, presenting themselves as saviours in a time of chaos.


Today, the political landscape shows a similar pattern. The aftermath of the financial crisis and the pandemic created fertile ground for populist leaders who thrive on polarization. Movements like Brexit, fueled by economic and cultural grievances, reflect a world where people are disillusioned with traditional politics. Meanwhile, the rise of far-right and far-left parties across Europe mirrors the ideological battles of the 1920s.


The lesson here is stark: economic despair fuels extremism, but it is often the failure of mainstream politics to address these grievances that allows radical ideologies to flourish.


 

Global Crises and Societal Fractures

In both eras, global crises served as accelerants for unrest. Just as World War I’s aftermath destabilized economies, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of modern systems. Supply chain disruptions, soaring debt, and political infighting have left many nations struggling to recover.


Moreover, the interconnected nature of today’s world amplifies these effects. What begins as a localized crisis—whether financial or geopolitical—quickly becomes global, much like how the Great Depression of the 1930s rippled across the globe.


 

Concluding Thoughts

A century apart, the years 1920–1924 and 2010–2024 show us the dangers of ignoring the warning signs of economic instability and political extremism. While history cannot predict the future, it can illuminate the paths we should avoid.


As we reflect on these parallels, one truth stands out: societies that invest in fairness, accountability, and resilience are better equipped to weather turbulent times. The past may echo loudly in the present, but the choice to break the cycle remains ours.

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

16 April 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Not only do UK farmers now face the looming threat of inheritance tax reforms that could force centuries-old family farms to be sold off - but they’re also contending with a policy shift that dismantles the very foundation of their economic stability: the withdrawal of direct farm subsidies.


A black-and-white cow grazes on a lush, green field with a dense forest in the background. The scene is peaceful and natural.

In a time of global instability - wars in Europe and the Middle East, disrupted trade routes, volatile commodity markets - the UK government is removing financial safeguards that have underpinned British agriculture for decades. And it’s doing so faster than many in the industry can adapt.


The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), a direct subsidy paid to farmers under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is in its final years. By 2027, it will be completely gone. In its place: a complex, tiered system of environmental schemes under the umbrella of the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS). Worthy in theory, but in practice? A mess of bureaucracy, delays, and shortfalls.


And the timing couldn’t be worse.


A Lifeline Cut-Off Before the Bridge Was Built

The BPS wasn’t perfect, but it provided one essential function - it kept farms afloat. Payments were calculated based on the amount of land farmed, offering predictability and a cashflow buffer that allowed British farms to invest in new equipment, manage seasonal fluctuations, and ride out the weather, both literal and economic.


Now, payments have been rapidly reduced. By 2024, many farmers had already lost 35%–50% of their BPS income. In 2025, a new cap of £7,200 per farm will apply. That’s a fraction of the £20,000 to £50,000 mid-size farms previously received.


The replacement - ELMS - promises payments for "public goods": improving soil health, reducing carbon emissions, boosting biodiversity. Laudable aims. But ask most farmers, and they’ll tell you: they don’t object to sustainability. What they object to is the speed and scale of the transition, and the fact that the new payments often don’t come close to replacing what’s being lost.


Environmental Schemes: Aspirations Without Infrastructure

At the core of ELMS are three tiers:

  1. Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI): Encourages low-level changes such as herbal leys, no-till farming, and reducing fertiliser use.

  2. Local Nature Recovery: Pays for habitat restoration and targeted environmental actions.

  3. Landscape Recovery: Funds large-scale, long-term ecosystem restoration, often in collaboration with multiple landowners.


But uptake has been patchy at best. As of late 2024, fewer than half of eligible farms had enrolled in any ELMS scheme. Why?

  • The schemes are confusing. Farmers must navigate different options, overlapping rules, and constant revisions.

  • The application process is time-consuming and opaque.

  • Payments under SFI are often insufficient, especially for mixed or livestock farms in upland areas where land-use change is more difficult.

  • Crucially, many tenanted farmers - nearly a third of all farms in England - face legal and logistical barriers to taking part.


DEFRA has promised streamlining. But meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo - without clear income streams, but still expected to feed the nation.


The Cost of Poor Policy Timing

Agricultural experts, rural economists, and even major retailers have raised alarm bells. In a scathing 2023 report, the National Audit Office warned that DEFRA had failed to communicate the changes effectively, leaving many in the dark about what the new schemes offer.


The NFU (National Farmers’ Union) has repeatedly called on the government to pause BPS cuts until ELMS is fully functioning, but those calls have largely been ignored. In late 2024, a coalition of MPs from all parties demanded a review, warning that this abrupt withdrawal of support could lead to an exodus from the industry.


And that’s not just a theoretical risk. A nationwide NFU survey found that 11% of farmers were considering leaving farming altogether due to the combined impact of reduced subsidies, labour shortages, and rising costs.


Food Security in an Uncertain World

This isn’t just a farming problem - it’s a national one.


The UK is already heavily reliant on imports for key food items. And with international trade routes threatened by conflict in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and shipping disruptions in the Red Sea, supply chains are becoming more fragile by the month.


Should we really be cutting back our domestic food production capacity now?


Government ambitions to rewild 10% of farmland, promote biodiversity, and shift toward carbon sequestration may look good on a whiteboard in Whitehall. But on the ground, it’s leading to reduced livestock numbers, lower domestic output, and a growing dependence on foreign markets that may not be as reliable as once assumed.


A Dangerous Gamble

To many farmers, this feels like an ideological experiment being conducted in real-time -with their livelihoods and our food supply on the line. And as supermarket CEOs and farming groups increasingly speak out, it’s clear this isn’t just grumbling from the shires. It’s a cry of alarm from the foundation of the UK’s food system.


Environmental ambition is important. Climate change is real. But so is hunger.

We can pursue sustainability - but not by pulling the rug out from under those who feed us. The government’s subsidy reform may have noble aims, but its execution is flawed, its timeline reckless, and its consequences potentially devastating.


If we want a resilient, secure food future, we must support the people who make it possible - not push them to the brink.

bottom of page