> If collapse happens, it notes the UK does not have the ability to absorb global shocks through higher domestic output. It lacks enough land to feed its population or rear livestock to maintain current consumption patterns and price levels.

Yet they're pushing to use farmland for solar farms and social housing.

There's a real hatred of farmers among the UK Leftist/Green crowd.

Farmland is ~69% of the total area of the UK with it being quite stable in the last decade, and most of that being grassland. Solar accounts for ~0.1% of (former) agricultural land, and after 2030 it should be around ~0.6%. The Land Use Framework aims for 1% of land (mainly agricultural, so ~1.5% of ag) for renewables by 2050. Housing doesn't have as comparable figures, but I'm envelope mathing it to about 1.5% by 2050 again. Which makes 3% of ag land, of which crops are roughly 1/3rd, and google says 60% of solar is on good crop land. So a reduction of up to ~6% at the top end.

There are a few flip-sides here - things that many don't like to hear or acknowledge:

There are alternate diets that are suitably nutritious that are achievable on this land, largely by reducing meat consumption. Meat production uses much more land than other food sources, and a lot of that is input crops. Its inefficient. A change in diet can make the UK self-sufficient on much less land.

Solar is a developing technology; it will improve, requiring less land for the same production. If long term trends push up the value of crops and down solar production, the panels can be removed and crops grown instead - its either/or but it is reversible. This is especially important for bringing in non-solar power sources which take longer to realise (nuclear, tidal). I will also note that solar farms are built on the good crop land because it is convenient and the price is right. We will see south facing hills covered soon enough.

Housing and social housing are the same problem; where housing prices are so high compared to salaries, social housing demand increases. Building houses - any houses - solves the problem. The question of density, location, style is a question about what kind of problems we want in 10-20 years time. High rises did not work well at all.

> > It lacks enough land to feed its population or rear livestock to maintain current consumption patterns and price levels.

> Yet they're pushing to use farmland for solar farms and social housing.

Cities, you may note, never ever make enough food to feed themselves. Always been true, everywhere and everywhen since the invention of the city.

Farmers choosing between cash crops and food crops was literally a game the teachers got the kids to play when I was in school in the 90s. Cash crops, and PV is kinda a cash crop, let you make enough money to buy food. That said, how much money depends on what industry you have to use the power, because nobody else in the world will care for the £ if the UK employment consists entirely of baristas, hairdressers, and Amazon warehouse staff/delivery drivers.

The biggest problem with using farmland for social housing is that a lot of the good farmland is a flood risk.

But the only case where the UK has to care that it doesn't make enough to feed itself is if the economy becomes an autarky, at which point it cannot help but suffer a massive population reduction because it's a small island quite close to the arctic circle which has spent or depleted most of its natural resources, first the wood (1600s-1700s), then the coal (1930s or so), then the fish (1980s or so), then the natural gas (early 2000s).

I don't think it's been possible to feed the UK domestically since before WW2.

I note you put the word "social" in there; very little social housing is being built, it's mostly private. Agrivoltaics are also possible, but of course everyone would rather do the politics of emotions ("hate farmers") than discuss the issues. Such as how we grow enough electricity, too.

The farmers are the ones selling the land off and living off the million pound proceeds

Farmland is worth £100/acre/year, at most that’s £3k an acre. But people pay £10k because it’s a way to avoid tax and if you get the right planning permission a way of making millions.

There's certainly a justified hatred of faux-farmers of convenience such as Clarkson et al.

I suspect that's the hatred being mischaracterised and amplified by the GBNews Farrage crowd.

There’s no real hatred of farmers on the left, other than the fact that farmers generally vote small-c conservative.

There’s certainly a hatred of land owners, and vast amounts of UK farm land is privately owned, renting the land to farmers. It’s the right wing parties and press that takes that to mean that the left hate farmers.