I think that's my point. If the structure of the soundbite doesn't argue for its case then it's a useful short-hand for people who know the economic definitions

I think that's my point. If the structure of the soundbite doesn't argue for its case then it's a useful short-hand for people who know the economic definitions, but it otherwise isn't enlightening. If the purpose of making the distinction between productive and unproductive activity is to inform, then a reason needs to be given for activities being called one or the other. Without that reason, the framing looks more like politics than economics. As for "provided": leaving aside the moral question of how the status quo obtained (which, I'll grant, was likely not moral at all), the landlord has land that can be used for farming, but also for polo or fox hunting or whatever. The farmers have time and energy that can be used for farming, but also for football and arm-wrestling competitions etc. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm just saying that if they're different we need to do more than just assert it.