[Me]

Just to make myself really popular (!): SFPs may or may not help keep the price of food down but an unwanted side effect is that it does price young farmers who weren't around when entitlements were handed out - out of the industry. Older/SFP farmers can afford to pay more to rent or buy land as they don't have to make a farming profit out of it. If you have to compete without this support then margins are even tighter. I understand the argument for support and as hypocritical as it is if only I could have afforded to buy entitlements off my Range Rover driving SFP farmer friends I would have. Allowing the "entitlements" to be owned and traded and not linking them to productive/active farming was a real own goal for the long term farming industry IMO and has not helped foster efficiency and has discouraged new entrants. - I await the backlash!!! 

[Marches Farmer]

I agree that naked acres is a foolish idea.  The whole thing started with a Government drive to increase home-based food production and, as always seeems to be the way with rules made by people who have no idea about the subject, has had important and unwanted side effects they'd never thought of.  I find the idea of my neighbours who've bought smallholdings and small farms because their children begged for a pony and who are now getting SFP for their weed-ridden, poached mudbaths with a couple of neglected ponies on it to be quite appalling (the ponies, of course, having long since lost their novelty value).

[Tim W]

Whilst SFP is meant to subsidise food production and in some cases is what keeps a farm afloat it also has many bad side effects;
Artificially inflates land and rent prices
Discourages innovative farming
Makes the wealthy even richer
etc

Look at my neighbour with 1200 acres and the associated SFP who sends 3 kids to a fee paying school---is that right? If he has the cash to spend on expensive education then does he need his farm supporting by us?
Look at the hill farmer who struggles to make a wage with sheep/cattle on his poor hill land and only just gets by because he gets SFP---does that SFP really represent good value for the taxpayer?

The argument for SFP is based on two disputed 'facts'
1) Without it food costs would increase---rubbish, if farmers can't produce food cheap enough we will import it---that's what happens with lamb now. It comes from NZ where it is produced a bit cheaper
2) Without it farmers would go bust---correct but so what? If you run an inefficient business you go bust ---that is what they call a free market/capitalism. There is always someone who can do the job better than you waiting to grab the opportunity

It is also argued that SFP ensures that farmers keep to strict rules that stop them polluting or degrading the environment---but these laws will be in place regardless of any subsidy 

Looking back at this it's a bit of a rant---so apologies! But I think we need to rethink the whole ag subsidy idea because we can't afford to subsidise inefficiencies any longer