I was very excited to get the invite to speak at the Oxford Union debate at OFC26 (#lifegoal). Then I got the topic. This House believes that, in 90 years’ time, farming will be a one day a week job. Heck – I can’t predict the future five years from now, let alone in 2116…

And then I started to think about all the issues begged by this question.

I knew my excellent colleague, Tracey Roan, dairy farmer in Scotland, would have a lot to say about the reality of animal husbandry and farm life – and she did – brilliantly.

So I chose to focus on the assumptions behind the question – that tech and AI have farming in their sights, leaving one day a week for work for the humans.

I wanted to ask; who gets to decide what innovation we invest in? How do we make sure that innovation tackles the real challenges ahead, and makes our lives better?

Who determines how we define work – what society will pay for, what we value, what we nurture, how we spend our days? And what kind of economy do we want for the next decades? One that is increasingly shaped by the already rich and powerful, for their own interests?

Or one that reasserts social value and the public interest, so that everyone can live healthy, sustainable, prosperous lives; in which the things we really care about are properly valued and supported?

In the short time I had to make my case I couldn’t share my references, but if you’re interested in these arguments, I commend two books in particular. The Care Economy, by Professor Tim Jackson; and The Work We Need, by Hilary Cottam.

I also learned a lot from the proposers, Dr Elliot Grant, and Kate Russell, who put up a bold and imaginative defence of the motion.

Anyway… Here it is.

Thank you, Dr Grant – I too have been doing a bit of historical research in preparation for this debate.

Just over 90 years ago, John Maynard Keynes wrote that, by now, the growing economy would have provided enough to meet everyone’s needs – and we’d only need to work 10-15 hours a week.

Our biggest problem would be how to use our leisure time!

Sound familiar?

And here we are. The economy has grown exponentially… What’s happened to all that growth? Initially, governments invested in public infrastructure and social value.

Now it is being sucked up by billionaires.

And what do they do with it…? Are they solving world hunger and childhood disease? Not enough... One of the richest men in the world sent his fiancée into space for her hen do - in a rocket shaped like an homage to Ann Summers….

Meanwhile it’s AI that’s writing the poetry and the songs – and it’s the people still doing the hard jobs for minimum wage.

Over the Christmas break, Mustafa Suleyman was guest editor on the Today Programme. One of the co-founders of Google DeepMind and now AI boss at Microsoft – one of Dr Grant’s Silicon Valley colleagues.

He made a comment that stopped me in my tracks. “If you’re not a little afraid at this moment,” he said, “you’re not paying attention”

He’s right of course. We should be paying attention. But to what? And on whose terms?

And should we really feel scared?

Fear is a debilitating state… So maybe we should be a bit more feisty. (I’m from the Rhondda I’m a little bit fighty!) Isn’t it better to face into the issues in AI – and the future of farming – and take back control of the arguments?

It’s action that’s the antidote to fear.

This isn’t a debate about farming or technology.

It’s not even just a debate about work.

It’s a debate about the future – and who gets to shape it.

And I am here to say it CANNOT just be up to the tech bros and the bankers and the oligarchs to tell us how things will be.

I want you to reject this motion because we in farming have to get more confident, more optimistic and more ambitious about what the REAL work is – and why we must value it properly.

Right now... what are the most valued – by which I mean ‘most highly paid’ – sectors? Finance. Tech. Professional services – like consulting. They dominate our economy. It’s where these smart kids go.

But ask yourself (as I did, when I was one!) if all those reports are fixing what’s broken. If they’re building what we need to survive and flourish.

If they make life worth living. Is that real work?

And – come the apocalypse – will we be able to eat all those PowerPoint presentations??

In sharp contrast, the kind of work we value financially the LEAST is often the most important to us and for a stable and flourishing society.

Who here has struggled to find affordable, regular childcare? Who has had to find help for an elderly relative?

Those everyday problems are the result of political choices. We are avoiding a proper conversation about how to organise and pay for the things that really matter to us.

Meanwhile, private equity firms sweep in – buying up care homes, nurseries, vets even. They strip out costs, put up prices, and extract a decent profit for themselves.

Good for them. Good for their investors.

Not so great for the rest of us. Wages are squeezed. Working conditions can be awful. It’s a struggle to find staff.

Sounds a bit like farming, eh?

I don’t need to tell anyone in this room that farming incomes are tight. If you account for inflation, they’ve not gone up for fifty years. How’s that then? Farming’s more productive. The farming workforce has been slashed. (And people’s physical and mental health have been trashed in the process…)

So who’s reaping the rewards?

Who’s farming the farmers...?

There’s no doubt - agriculture is changing fast. Big machines took on a lot of the hard graft. Automation, data, and AI will change it further.

But isn't farming the very definition of a profession that’s the lifeblood of an economy that should sustain us and repair our world?

Farming will always be about growing food. Doing that in a profitable and resilient way means looking after the soil, air and water. It means maintaining homes for wildlife.

Doing the very best for the welfare of our animals, ensuring our farms and landscapes can sustain us long into the future.

Hey – somebody even needs to care for all those machines that are doing the heavy lifting.

And it means preserving the skills and knowledge that allow us to be adaptable and resilient in ANY future scenario over the next 90 years.

You can’t force this into one day a week. You can’t cut corners. This applies as much to nursing a patient and looking after a toddler as it does to growing wheat and raising sheep.

Let me be clear. I am not anti tech, or anti innovation. I AM asking us to think carefully about the innovations we value and invest in; and who gets to benefit.

Farming SHOULD NOT be a one-day a week job. That’s not a reflection of what the real work of farming is – and it diminishes the brilliance of farmers – across the UK and around the world – who get up every single day and work to feed us all.

When you’re weighing up the arguments this evening, ask yourself – who really stands to gain from shrinking the work of farming further?

Closing statement

I’ve really enjoyed this debate. Yes – this is a provocative motion. It challenges us to think hard about farming and how it’s changing. But really it requires us to imagine work in completely new ways, in a world that’s changing fast around us.

We can learn lessons from history

Keynes was right about the economy but perhaps wrong about the politics.

We could carry on letting world be shaped by those greedy for ever more power and riches.

Or we can – collectively – imagine and shape a different future, safer, healthier, fairer for everyone…

And we can develop better foresight.

Is fresh thinking, real creativity and innovation really coming from outside farming – from technological advances and scientific breakthroughs? What if the next breakthrough comes from reconnecting science and tech, with ethics, principles and values, about what really matters to us – and frankly to a living planet?

And never forget… Tech isn’t a gift – AI isn’t free – it’s another commodity, costing a fortune to produce, consuming huge amounts of our natural resources. All those investors want their returns – and we will have to pay. These are not nice people…

What we care about, what we value, and how we spend our days is the defining question of our era. And who SHOULD decide our futures?

So reject this motion. Resist the idea that farming needs to be a part-time job. Let’s imagine instead a future where we invest our resources and our time in what matters – what we really care about. And let’s value it properly. After all, it’s the work on which our health and prosperity depends.

The motion was defeated by 228 votes to 136.

FFCC Chief Exec Sue Pritchard winning the OFC Oxford Union Debate 2026.