Well, since a free market is one in which there is no government interference in the market except to preserve property rights then yes, there is in theory – in practice due to massive government intervention in the economy such a thing does not exist. Surely though, the answer is not to regulate more, but to deregulate?

Those who claim that capitalism inevitably tends towards monopoly:

In a free market this is not the case, or at least monopolies cannot charge monopoly prices.

In the crony capitalism which we have in which government favour and dis-favour has massive effects on business then yes, it will happen, but that’s not a consequence of free market capitalism but of the corporatist political capitalism we have.

Perhaps he’ll remember next time.

This time 100 years ago, I, Asquith, was in charge!

A market dominated by cartels is not free. A truly free market requires a degree of state regulation. Basically to set the rules, prevent unfair competition, deception of the public and enforce a standard of quality. After that the state should back down, yes. But not before.

Yet again, Clegg has scored over Dave from PR.

However, these abuses need to be tackled directly and made illegal; just creating yet another regulator in the form of a Food Trade Inspector is likely to be as useful as a straw hat in a hurricane. The Supermarkets are past masters at neutering regulators (including the Competition Commission itself to name but one).

Nor do I think that farmers’ markets and the like are the answer. Not that I’ve anything against them as such and they certainly have their place but the job of farmers is … well farming – not retailing. It is not unreasonable to expect that there should be a retail sector that does that job without grabbing ALL the profit from the entire supply chain.

There are many things that could be done but that would be beyond the scope of this comment – suffice to say that where there is a political will there is a way.

I believe that, increasingly, farmers are contracted suppliers to one or other major retailer and do not have realistic market opportunities to sell to other wholesale or retail customers. If so this is one thing that needs to be tackled –if only by making the situation crystal clear to everybody including consumers and purist free-market commentators.

Yes farmers markets are fighting back and a good thing too, as this may help recreate some genuine markets in foods.

Note that this is a situation we the consumers have in part asked for. When we insist on proving provenance for produce – to guarantee for example that apples are grown without excessive pesticide use – we place a burden on our retail shops to establish an audit chain for the produce from grower to shop shelf. That cannot easily be done in an open farm-gate market structure still less in a major wholesale market structure. (Such as Smithfield for meat). These audit chains are costly so the incentive is to deal with few suppliers (closely contracted) who can be monitored efficiently rather than depending on many suppliers.

The power of purchasers means that farms are in exactly the opposite situation to a futures market where producers could trade off risks in return for stable returns. They are in a just-in time market situation where their customers have the right to change the returns farmers get from current production investment right at the last minute.

More general point – in asking for support for rural infrastructure (post offices and all) Nick is calling for substantial subsidies for rural areas which will be paid for by urban people unless the subsidy results in reductions in other costs that offset this. It may be helpful to have clarity and honesty on this matter if only to ourselves.

The supermarkets only have power over the farmers because there are too many farms – they are being subsidised to stay in business.

NC’s recognition of the problems of subsidies and barriers is good. Some discussion of how he intends to change EU policy on this is would have been a lot more honest though. In reality he must know that he can’t change it, and the EU is unlikely to change of its own accord any time soon.

I’m very very glad he’s firm on protectionism and I like that he’s telling farmers to experiment in their marketing and what they produce. As society gets even more prosperous people have more to spend on what can be seen as luxury produce- British farmers should be exploiting this as much as they can.