Rather, supermarkets in the UK operate in an oligopoly where there are very high barriers to entry and the top four players have over 70% market share between them.

This in turn leads to an oligopsony in the wholesale food market where the supermarkets hold almost unprecedented power over their suppliers, demanding not only low prices but also passing on many of the natural risks and demand fluctuations of their own business.

There are several factors that cause barriers to entry in this market - some that we can’t do anything about (such as the need for an expensive nationwide distribution network) - and some that we can (the anti-competitive practice of land-banking).

We should be fixing the ones that we can and encouraging more competitors in the UK supermarket industry - and that would get a fairer deal for suppliers AND consumers.

If you want a highly simplified explanation of the inequality between supermarkets and their suppliers - land for supermarkets is both expensive and rare, agricultural land much less so. A case for land-value taxation if I ever saw one!

The subsidy actually acts to artificially raise prices too given that much of the subsidy is formed from trade barriers to prevent competition from outside the EU, or to favour preferred producers.

Scrapping subsidy and tariffs would probably act to lower prices given that many producers outside the EU have a comparative advantage in producing quite a few agricultural goods.

The best example for the benefits of scrapping subsidy and tariff barriers is New Zealand. They completely opened up their market and now their agriculture sector is far more prosperous with cheaper produce (witness complaints about New Zealand lamb being cheaper).

I do have sympathy for the plight of independent traders - it certainly is not an easy market that they are operating in - but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a free one.

The people who complain about the low prices domestic farmers get for their goods generally are not anywhere near as vocal about the plight of British manufacturing. In the 1980s when Britain’s industry was becoming less profitable because of falling prices they argued that you either need to diversify or have a unique selling point otherwise you will not survive.

One slight quibble I have with your argument above however - you argue on the one hand that higher prices are unpalatable because they will put fresh produce out of the reach of people or more modest income - on the other that we should scrap farming subsidies.

The subsidy, however unpalatable from a free market point of view, does ensure an oversupply of produce. This does have the effect of ensuring that there is less competition for the goods that are produced, allowing prices to drop.

If we remove the subsidy we run the risk that it will no longer be sustainable for some farming businesses to remain operational (after all, however much farmers have to pay out in tax to make the subsidies work, they cannot possibly be paying out as much personally as they are coining back). This will decrease supply, raising prices on staple goods (particularly milk and bread).

You ask why we spend so much time and money on a tiny proportion of the population and the economy? I think you’re right to a degree that part of it is sentimentality but I think the other part of it is that the last thing politicians want is voters’ money not stretching as far because of rising prices.