Interesting piece in the Spectator: no MP for a truly 'rural' area sits in Cabinet: most represent London, Leeds or Manchester seats.
The four-man DEFRA team sit for constituencies in Streatham, Cambridge, Coventry and Hull.
Is that not just the nature of being a Labour Government in the current environment? How many truly 'rural' constituencies have Labour MP's for them to be able to choose from?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
Are you suggesting that reducing waiting lists and having a much-improved NHS, to give just one example, only benefits city dwellers?
Predominantly yes. As you would know if you lived in the country. There has been a concentration of NHS services into larger hubs, usually in cities and the closure of smaller hospitals and other emergency service facilities in market towns. Even where hospitals stay open they do not provide things like A&E. So you now have to travel much further to use those services. This is the reality for many people living in rural and semi-rural areas. Up until a few years ago my nearest A&E under a blue light was about 8 minutes away. It is now 35 - if you are lucky with the traffic. If you are not blue lighting it is the best part of an hour.
Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.
Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.
You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.
Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.
Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.
It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.
Oops, forgot to add the *
* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.
You can film any council meeting nowadays and even live stream it. "Open government" might have been a joke in Yes Minister but this is a fundamental difference between the Conservative Party and our opponents. It was the Conservative Party which opened up local government in 1972 and it was us who allowed filming in council meetings. We take the view that by and large people being able to see what happens in meetings is a good thing.
The cringiest meetings are those Cabinet meetings where the cameras look in for three minutes of banter at the start.
Today’s education, thanks.
IMHO the council should be required to film it and put on their website, these things are cheap to do nowadays.
Interesting piece in the Spectator: no MP for a truly 'rural' area sits in Cabinet: most represent London, Leeds or Manchester seats.
The four-man DEFRA team sit for constituencies in Streatham, Cambridge, Coventry and Hull.
Interesting, Labour definitely does have some heavily rural constituencies, Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr looks to me to be one of their largest by area.
That or Hexham or Western Isles, though that one is a bit sui generis.
Northumberland North is probably more rural than Hexham.
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
As opposed to the Tory attack on Sure Start centres that has done so much long term harm to so many. It's just that those affected never had the voice or ready access to the media that fox hunters, farmers and private schools do.
Yup. The squealing from the toffs and their apologists as their little loopholes are closed off is a sign that the government is doing the right thing. It is about time the country was run on merit rather than privilege.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
You could buy an acre of farmland on a credit card.
Ooh hello, protest not just about land owners and IHT
David Spours, a tenant farmer from north Northumberland, says "every single farmer" in his area will be affected by the change.
On top of the changes to inheritance tax, Spours says changes to carbon emissions rules will increase the price of crop fertiliser.
He tells PA he will be £60,000 worse off next year, which combined with a rise in the cost of fertiliser means his prospects are "looking pretty grim"
Mentioned this a few weeks ago. A genius new tax that will be put onto fertisiler that we import. Fertiliser is one of the biggest costs for farmers. This will obviously have a heavy impact on price of UK food produced. However, there will be no equivalent tax on food imported into the country. This all appears deliberate, to destroy the competitiveness of UK farming.
Ooh hello, protest not just about land owners and IHT
David Spours, a tenant farmer from north Northumberland, says "every single farmer" in his area will be affected by the change.
On top of the changes to inheritance tax, Spours says changes to carbon emissions rules will increase the price of crop fertiliser.
He tells PA he will be £60,000 worse off next year, which combined with a rise in the cost of fertiliser means his prospects are "looking pretty grim"
Mentioned this a few weeks ago. A genius new tax that will be put onto fertisiler that we import. Fertiliser is one of the biggest costs for farmers. This will obviously have a heavy impact on price of UK food produced. However, there will be no equivalent tax on food imported into the country. This all appears deliberate, to destroy the competitiveness of UK farming.
This is the UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, yes? Introduced by the Conservative government. I thought it didn't kick in until 2027.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
As opposed to the Tory attack on Sure Start centres that has done so much long term harm to so many. It's just that those affected never had the voice or ready access to the media that fox hunters, farmers and private schools do.
Yup. The squealing from the toffs and their apologists as their little loopholes are closed off is a sign that the government is doing the right thing. It is about time the country was run on merit rather than privilege.
I have to be honest and say I do not know whether the government is doing the right thing here. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information. At the very least, it's been another comms balls up. But what strikes me is how much coverage this issue is getting as compared to the coverage of other things that happened in the past that affected far more people and did so much damage. It's not just Sure Start, it's also the two child policy and so on. Ready access to media is clearly absolutely vital in these cases. Those at the bottom do not have it. Those at the top do.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Badger hunting with hounds would be a great spectator sport.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Over complicating the tax system just creates even more opportunities for too-clever-by-half schemes that end up distorting the market & fail to achieve their stated goal.
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
So does Ms Le Conte actually want to organise a protest of young people over housing costs, or does she prefer to virtue signal that at least she’s thinking about the problem?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
I wonder if enough of the population would get what Venison is? Might have to rebrand it Bambi Beef or something.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Interesting piece in the Spectator: no MP for a truly 'rural' area sits in Cabinet: most represent London, Leeds or Manchester seats.
The four-man DEFRA team sit for constituencies in Streatham, Cambridge, Coventry and Hull.
Is that not just the nature of being a Labour Government in the current environment? How many truly 'rural' constituencies have Labour MP's for them to be able to choose from?
About 100 rural and semi-rural constituencies.
Yes, lose all those and Labour loses its majority and would need LD or SNP confidence and supply and both oppose the tractor tax and would demand its reversal and an end to the WFA cut for their support
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
So does Ms Le Conte actually want to organise a protest of young people over housing costs, or does she prefer to virtue signal that at least she’s thinking about the problem?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
PB is a pub, of course. Just the ability to drop that last line in and be understood is like walking into your local and bringing up some incident from 20 years ago and everyone gets the reference...
The absurdity of the farm land inheritance tax debate is that the very rich can and do avoid IHT altogether with decent planning, which of course they do, having the resources and incentive.
Those loopholes could be closed relatively easily and the genuine multi-millionaires and above made to pay their fair share. But the govt won't because it doesn't want a fight with them. If they *did* tax multi-millionaire estates properly, they could then exempt farms under, say, £5m land value from IHT altogether.
Ooh hello, protest not just about land owners and IHT
David Spours, a tenant farmer from north Northumberland, says "every single farmer" in his area will be affected by the change.
On top of the changes to inheritance tax, Spours says changes to carbon emissions rules will increase the price of crop fertiliser.
He tells PA he will be £60,000 worse off next year, which combined with a rise in the cost of fertiliser means his prospects are "looking pretty grim"
Mentioned this a few weeks ago. A genius new tax that will be put onto fertisiler that we import. Fertiliser is one of the biggest costs for farmers. This will obviously have a heavy impact on price of UK food produced. However, there will be no equivalent tax on food imported into the country. This all appears deliberate, to destroy the competitiveness of UK farming.
This is the UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, yes? Introduced by the Conservative government. I thought it didn't kick in until 2027.
Correct, in part. The CBAM consultation was initiated by the Conservative government, the response and outcomes have been actioned on 30th October by this Labour government. It will come into effect on 1st January 2027.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
It’s easy in Opposition. “We oppose Labour’s dreadful trade deals and repudiate some of our old ones which we signed when we went a bit eco-nuts, but we are in favour of our own proposed new ones which would include only good things and no compromises”.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
PB is a pub, of course. Just the ability to drop that last line in and be understood is like walking into your local and bringing up some incident from 20 years ago and everyone gets the reference...
You’re saying Charlie Falconer might resign over this policy?
In response to @NickPalmer questioning if the conservatives will cancel the farmers IHT, Kemi is to join Jeremy Clarkson on stage to address and support the farmer's demonstration outside no 10
Also Scottish Labour are announcing they will reinstate the WFP
She may well be appearing but I bet decent money that unless Labour backs down (and it won't) the policy won't be changed by 2032...
If the policy is implemented we will see the actual effects.
If those are negative then the policy will be changed by someone at some point.
Are you sure......governments have a habit of sticking to their guns for both ideological and political reasons. They aren't run like a business...the cliff edge at £50-60k and £100-120k make no sense on a number of fronts if you want to maximise growth / productivity and not clear they maximise tax take either, yet here we are still with them 15 years later. We also have cliff edges in how many hours people can work per week.
If we see the whole farming sector steadily shutting down then that will lead to higher prices and outbreaks of panic buying.
Not a good image for governments.
It ill behoves the Tories to whine about farmers (as opposed to landowners, which is what IHT actually applies to) given how little they've done to promote fiid security and stop the supermarkets grinding the farmers down, as opposed to demanding more cheap food imports from Australia etc.
Putting farmers on a sounder economic footing would have been a better way toi approach the whole issue, including a rebalancing of agricultural land from its currently bloated values. But I have yet to read about Labour dealing with things like supermarket milk wholesale prices.
It's just another thing to be outraged about, see 20mph limits and all things Ed Miliband.
The IFS, Dan Neidle have done the work on this and it's going to affect very few farmers. The tax-free allowance for a couple is £2.65 million and there are only 462 inherited farms worth more than £1 million (out of around 200,000). And it's only the value above the allowance that is affected by IHT.
Much that I like Dan Neidle - I think he's wrong.
Our Uni friend has just inherited part of a farm and it's gone up for sale for £5m - now I don't know how much land there is but as an anecdote it means I question Dan's figures...
Hmm. If we are going for land values alone, then that *part* of a farm must be more than 500 acres alone at current average values. That part of a farm is more than 2x the size of an entire average farm in the UK.
If it's got PP or prospect of PP that would make a difference.
I think the numbers of estates details are from HMRC.
Land prices have rocket by 4-5x since 2000 on published numbers, so perhaps what we actually need is lower farmland prices so that farmland becomes about farming, rather than tax-dodging or speculation or land banking.
That will also help with the remove the "but but but I only get a 0.7% return" thing.
I'm not much of a fan of Will Hutton. However, he has something here.
Wait for the squealing when they address land banking and windfall planning gains on land sold for development.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
I wonder if enough of the population would get what Venison is? Might have to rebrand it Bambi Beef or something.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
Indeed.
And I've just eaten my lunch roll, of cold panfried breast of pheasant* with watercress and mayonnaise.
*From a local farm-type shop. Admittedly. Which does at least reduce the chain.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Badger hunting with hounds would be a great spectator sport.
Badger hunting with bare knuckles would be even more popular. And fairer.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Over complicating the tax system just creates even more opportunities for too-clever-by-half schemes that end up distorting the market & fail to achieve their stated goal.
Much simpler & fairer to tax everyone equally.
Let me know when we start doing that - oh don't bother, you and I will be long gone by then. This is not about fairness and closing loopholes at all. If Labour were serious about that they would be taking on the big multinationals.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
It’s funny how terms like beaver, bum, fanny, ass have such different meanings in US English, and English English.
One US friend couldn’t stop laughing when he saw a local travel agent’s called Beaver Travel.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
Indeed.
And I've just eaten my lunch roll, of cold panfried breast of pheasant* with watercress and mayonnaise.
*From a local farm-type shop. Admittedly. Which does at least reduce the chain.
Pheasant also probably ticks a box, in that it a credible meal for a two person household (albeit we usually have one each). Let’s call them “eco friendly micro-chickens”.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
It’s funny how terms like beaver, bum, fanny, ass have such different meanings in US English, and English English.
One US friend couldn’t stop laughing when he saw a local travel agent’s called Beaver Travel.
My wife did a year in Canada as part of her degree and found the locals insistence on singing the 'Beaver' song rather hilarious.
I am sorry but farmers have been mollycoddled for long enough.
100% tax relief which is effectively dodges inheritance tax, no wonder Clarkson became a farmer.
What are the changes?
Agricultural property relief (APR) allows eligible farmland to be inherited with 100pc tax relief, and business property relief can be claimed on qualifying assets (such as farmland or equipment) not covered by APR.
From 6 April 2026, the full 100pc relief will be restricted to the first £1m of combined agricultural and business property. After that, the relief drops to 50pc. Assets above the threshold will be subject to an effective 20pc inheritance tax charge, meaning thousands of farmers will have to start paying death duties.
However, the Government says that the actual threshold before paying inheritance tax could be up to £3m, taking into account exemptions for each partner in a couple and for the farm property.
There's a very good argument for looking at the problem of agricultural land (whether its use is economically efficient and environmentally beneficial; whether it's being abused by the very rich as a tax dodge, etc). But bringing in an ill thought out measure like this, with virtually no consultation, which overturns the arrangements of the last half century, and is quite likely to have negative unintended consequences, is not the way to go about it.
I cannot see a single argument why farmers should have 100% relief.
Maybe I can change your mind. Sam Cam's sister is protesting at the inequity of pulling tax relief on farm bequeathments?
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
It’s easy in Opposition. “We oppose Labour’s dreadful trade deals and repudiate some of our old ones which we signed when we went a bit eco-nuts, but we are in favour of our own proposed new ones which would include only good things and no compromises”.
Of course the Tories would oppose any trade deal done with the US by the government. My point was about whether they would oppose one not being done in order to protect British farmers.
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
It’s funny how terms like beaver, bum, fanny, ass have such different meanings in US English, and English English.
One US friend couldn’t stop laughing when he saw a local travel agent’s called Beaver Travel.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Badger hunting with hounds would be a great spectator sport.
Badger hunting with bare knuckles would be even more popular. And fairer.
Its like hunting animals with guns. The animals should be armed too.
The central issue as I see it is that people don't take the concept of "food security" seriously. They point to imports and the limitless availability of foods from across the planet in Aldi (in particular from Bordeaux, ahem) and scorn the idea that a country should be able to feed itself from its own resources.
Now, is that a sensible view? We have had COVID and Ukraine which tested this to the limits perhaps (or was it just panic buying/hoarding).
If we really think that food security is an issue then it matters that farms are afforded protection and incentives in a non-monopolistic way (what happens if Farmer Ted's farm is bought by Russian AgriGrain Inc). If we don't, it doesn't.
We don't have food security anyway. We only grow 60% of our calories, a lot of what we grow depends on imports from other parts of the world, and the value of what we grow is subject to the vagaries of world markets.
It would take an enormous, fiscally crippling intervention to resolve all of that.
The UK was last self-sufficient in food around the mid 18th century. Up until the mid 19th we could feed outselves most of the time, but a poor harvest would have led to starvation without imports. Since the 1830s or so we have never been self-sufficient in food.
Arguably we could (just about) be self-sufficient if we ditched beef cattle, and reduced pig and chicken numbers to those that could be fed only on food waste / forage on scrap land, plus what feed could be grown on land unsuitable for growing human edible crops. We’d effectively be subsisting on a constrained, very seasonal vegetarian diet supplemented with a little extra meat.
Veganism is the answer.
Oh boy, you're going to lose so badly in 2029.
I thought the sarcasm was palpable!
But it's true. The kind of self-sufficiency Topping is looking for could only be achieved that way.
Take out Jeremy Clarkson, who has become a national treasure following Clarkson's Farm, and I'm not sure the traction that this protest would get today. But plenty more people understand how a farm works than did before he appeared with his Prime series.
Now of course for him it's a plaything and I think people realise that he is the exception. Because what the prog did very well was illustrate how thin farming margins can be and how many if not most are living on the edge.
You only have to look at rates of suicide of farmers to understand this.
Anecdotal evidence. I have my parents staying with me at the moment, and they have just been introduced to Clarkson’s Farm. They’ve binge-watched the whole of it in a week, and are totally astonished by how the numbers just don’t add up.
Now Jeremy has other commitments, and he hired a tractor driver to drive his tractor and a shepherd to drive his sheep - but the reality for many farmers, including many of his neighbours, is very different, something that was made abundently clear on the show. Clarkson can afford to invest into a restaurant and make money from televising his fight with the council*, but other farmers don’t have the same publicity for any of their attempts to vertically integrate their own supply chains.
It’s difficult to underestimate the effect of this series on the average British townie, and it’s certainly made support for the farmers against the government much higher than it would otherwise have been. Not the best of targets for Starmer and Reeves to have chosen.
Oops, forgot to add the *
* Whoever the feck at West Oxfordshire District Council thought it might be a good idea to allow Clarkson to bring video cameras into their meeting is a total idiot. Unless of course it was their aim to highlight what NIMBYism and local vendettas look like in practice, to a massive audience of people who generally hate NIMBYs and their local council.
You can film any council meeting nowadays and even live stream it. "Open government" might have been a joke in Yes Minister but this is a fundamental difference between the Conservative Party and our opponents. It was the Conservative Party which opened up local government in 1972 and it was us who allowed filming in council meetings. We take the view that by and large people being able to see what happens in meetings is a good thing.
The cringiest meetings are those Cabinet meetings where the cameras look in for three minutes of banter at the start.
Today’s education, thanks.
IMHO the council should be required to film it and put on their website, these things are cheap to do nowadays.
Not quite.
It seems I have to educate some on here about how local Government actually works as apart from how some think it works.
Most Council meetings (including Cabinet meetings) are made up of a Part 1 and a Part 2. The Part 1 is open to the public and the Part 1 reports are usually available in advance on the Council's own website.
Part 2 is where the public are excluded and the Councillors get to discuss confidential items - often related to property transactions, very senior appointments or contract awards. Reports can have a Part 2 element which wouldn't be seen by the public. Part 2 discussions have to be held in private because the Council has to function as a business on occasions and has to be able to deliberate on business-sensitive matters in private.
Part 2 reports can eventually be disclosed under Freedom of Information but only when the relevant commercial transaction or appointment has been made.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
It’s easy in Opposition. “We oppose Labour’s dreadful trade deals and repudiate some of our old ones which we signed when we went a bit eco-nuts, but we are in favour of our own proposed new ones which would include only good things and no compromises”.
Of course the Tories would oppose any trade deal done with the US by the government. My point was about whether they would oppose one not being done in order to protect British farmers.
But like I say that’s easy. You don’t have to oppose the idea of something. You can say you’re in favour “unlike the narrow minded Government, hell bent on slavishly following the EU”, and when challenged on hormone beef and chlorine chicken just say “yeah but we’d negotiate that bit out”. You’re in Opposition, you don’t have to worry about actually doing it.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
It’s easy in Opposition. “We oppose Labour’s dreadful trade deals and repudiate some of our old ones which we signed when we went a bit eco-nuts, but we are in favour of our own proposed new ones which would include only good things and no compromises”.
Of course the Tories would oppose any trade deal done with the US by the government. My point was about whether they would oppose one not being done in order to protect British farmers.
But like I say that’s easy. You don’t have to oppose the idea of something. You can say you’re in favour “unlike the narrow minded Government, hell bent on slavishly following the EU”, and when challenged on hormone beef and chlorine chicken just say “yeah but we’d negotiate that bit out”. You’re in Opposition, you don’t have to worry about actually doing it.
Ha, yes - I get the point now. You're right, of course.
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
As a scumbag Centrist I have said since Thatcher changed the rules that foreign carpetbaggers shouldn't be allowed to buy our assets. Particularly buying out our industrial successes and then moving them abroad. You didn't moan too much about that. And what about the negative effects on industry including farming of Brexit. You didn't moan about that- oh wait, my mistake, you did.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
Reminds me we need to phone up the farm out in the country to order some of their pork, lamb, hoggett and mutton into the freezer - depending on what they have, but that is inevitable - and some more pheasant and v enison.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Badger hunting with hounds would be a great spectator sport.
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
So does Ms Le Conte actually want to organise a protest of young people over housing costs, or does she prefer to virtue signal that at least she’s thinking about the problem?
I can just imagine the reaction on here if a protest was organised involving direct action against rentiers and letting agents. Time to bring back squats for true apoplexy!
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
And the whisky, pork, cauliflower, broccoli, sprouts etc that can be exported with fewer barriers to Australia and NZ?
Interesting to see so called liberals as protectionist and pro tariff as Trump and Le Pen though on any trade with any nation outside the EU
So we listen to farmers ... sometimes.
I hope you’re not suggesting that political parties align with interest groups when it’s politically convenient to do so, before dropping them like a stone when it’s not?! That would be scandalous.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
*also innocent face*
Most of the moaning about a lack of beaver in the UK is from pathetic nerds who just can't find any
Get out there. Be confident. Put on a proper jacket and polish your brogues
Did Kemi find Starmer’s old lamp and summon his genie? If you had to pick one issue that could help the Tories get back to 30-33% and solidify the core then something rural going into the 2025 elections would be it.
It will be interesting to see what stance the Tories take on a trade deal with the US. The ones they negotiated with Australia and New Zealand have already harmed our farmers but one with the US would absolutely destroy them. If Labour resists a deal with Trump and says part of the reason is to protect UK farmers, how would the Tories oppose that? After all, wasn't one of their arguments for Brexit that we wanted to get out of the protectionist clutches of the EU and open our markets for food and other agricultural products up to the world?
UK farm exports to Australia and NZ have risen.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
Aren't we supposed to be listening to the farmers?
And the whisky, pork, cauliflower, broccoli, sprouts etc that can be exported with fewer barriers to Australia and NZ?
Interesting to see so called liberals as protectionist and pro tariff as Trump and Le Pen though on any trade with any nation outside the EU
So we listen to farmers ... sometimes.
I hope you’re not suggesting that political parties align with interest groups when it’s politically convenient to do so, before dropping them like a stone when it’s not?! That would be scandalous.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
Probably because they are keeping it quiet. If they complain, people will wonder, wtf, why not 40%? Not so romantic as ye olde yeoman farmer type. Mr Clarkson didn't buy up an old Smethwick metalbashing firm and do a TV series about it, did he?
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
They'll have a way better profit/ROI/EBIDTA than any farm with a similar size balance sheet.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
My wife makes a rather wonderful variant of Shepherd's Pie which uses minced elements of venison/duck/pheasant/rabbit steeped in a very lush sauce... We call it Poacher's Pie.
Breakdown of 2024 election vote by sexuality. Tories got their highest vote share among straight women, Labour among lesbian/gay women, Reform with straight men and the greens and lib dems with bisexual women. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1857482400474747384
Across the 6 categories, the LibDem vote share varies from 10% (lesbian) to 16% (gay men), so remarkably consistent.
The Green vote varies from 5% (straight men) to 22% (bisexual women). The Conservative vote varies from 6% (bisexual women) to 27% (straight women).
I think this reliably proves that the LibDems are the most egalitarian party sexually.
How many "efnik" MPs do you have out of 72?
Five?
Hobhouse: German Babarinde: Black British Moran: Palestinian/British Perteghella: Italian Wilson: Asian British
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
*also innocent face*
Most of the moaning about a lack of beaver in the UK is from pathetic nerds who just can't find any
Get out there. Be confident. Put on a proper jacket and polish your brogues
Lefty beaver may not give a dam (geddit!) for a proper jacket and polished brogues of course.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Badger hunting with hounds would be a great spectator sport.
Badger hunting with bare knuckles would be even more popular. And fairer.
Can we vote for Brian May to fight the first badger?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
*also innocent face*
Most of the moaning about a lack of beaver in the UK is from pathetic nerds who just can't find any
Get out there. Be confident. Put on a proper jacket and polish your brogues
Lefty beaver may not give a dam (geddit!) for a proper jacket and polished brogues of course.
MInd, the kind that goes to the lodge might, unless it's on the Clyde of course in which case all bets are off.
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com · 4m could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
So does Ms Le Conte actually want to organise a protest of young people over housing costs, or does she prefer to virtue signal that at least she’s thinking about the problem?
I can just imagine the reaction on here if a protest was organised involving direct action against rentiers and letting agents. Time to bring back squats for true apoplexy!
Never mind a protest, anyone who has lived in London would happily join in a public [REDACTED] of anyone who works for [REDACTED], [REDACTED], or [REDACTED].
Names of certain activities and London letting firms redacted to avoid the chances of a Non-Crime Hate Incident.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
There's plenty of beaver in the UK these days
*innocent face*
Yes, lots of foreign beaver making its way to the UK for a better life.
*also innocent face*
Most of the moaning about a lack of beaver in the UK is from pathetic nerds who just can't find any
Get out there. Be confident. Put on a proper jacket and polish your brogues
Lefty beaver may not give a dam (geddit!) for a proper jacket and polished brogues of course.
Are you saying they would or would not split if they saw them?
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
I don't think pheasant counts as vegan because, unlike deer, the population needs a lot of support to attain the numbers they have at the moment..
Otoh, they have less intelligence than most vegetables.
The central issue as I see it is that people don't take the concept of "food security" seriously. They point to imports and the limitless availability of foods from across the planet in Aldi (in particular from Bordeaux, ahem) and scorn the idea that a country should be able to feed itself from its own resources.
Now, is that a sensible view? We have had COVID and Ukraine which tested this to the limits perhaps (or was it just panic buying/hoarding).
If we really think that food security is an issue then it matters that farms are afforded protection and incentives in a non-monopolistic way (what happens if Farmer Ted's farm is bought by Russian AgriGrain Inc). If we don't, it doesn't.
We don't have food security anyway. We only grow 60% of our calories, a lot of what we grow depends on imports from other parts of the world, and the value of what we grow is subject to the vagaries of world markets.
It would take an enormous, fiscally crippling intervention to resolve all of that.
The UK was last self-sufficient in food around the mid 18th century. Up until the mid 19th we could feed outselves most of the time, but a poor harvest would have led to starvation without imports. Since the 1830s or so we have never been self-sufficient in food.
Arguably we could (just about) be self-sufficient if we ditched beef cattle, and reduced pig and chicken numbers to those that could be fed only on food waste / forage on scrap land, plus what feed could be grown on land unsuitable for growing human edible crops. We’d effectively be subsisting on a constrained, very seasonal vegetarian diet supplemented with a little extra meat.
Veganism is the answer.
Oh boy, you're going to lose so badly in 2029.
I thought the sarcasm was palpable!
But it's true. The kind of self-sufficiency Topping is looking for could only be achieved that way.
I'm not saying I'm looking for it, I'm saying that we have as a matter of course dismissed it as being something we should care about. I don't know what the number is - did someone say 60%? If that is the right answer then we should understand the implications of needing to import 40% of our food needs. And not be surprised when something interrupts the process.
As for the farming thing in general, you don't need me to tell you that @A_View_From_Cumbria5 had it right. It is basically illegal to do anything other with (your own) farmland than farm. Now, you may say how come people ended up with 500 acres while others are renting on the 4th floor of a tower block.
But as it stands, the government is penalising people for something they are forced to do. And one of the unintended consequences will be an increase in legal firms looking to gain planning permission for erstwhile agricultural use land. I'm not sure that's what we want, either.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
I don't think pheasant counts as vegan because, unlike deer, the population needs a lot of support to attain the numbers they have at the moment..
Otoh, they have less intelligence than most vegetables.
Deer also (often) rely on crops. Farm fields, saplings, my friend's garden ...
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
The most obvious way around it (as I’ve recommended clients), is gifting shares to children at an early stage.
You have the advantage of being able to do so without running foul of reservation of benefit rules.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
"processed"? You mean plucked or breasted. And that's not bad going if you want the legs as well.
Note that the Netherlands elected it's most right wing gov't ever after their own gov'ts previous run in with farmers.
What we're seeing here is how a cliquey North London left-wing metropolitan Fabian set understands neither business nor farming, and how that so readily bleeds into policy.
I've been astonished at how politically inept they've been, but they've never done it before and lack the humility to listen to anyone who has.
Can you explain, in simple terms, why farmers deserve to pass on their farms to their heirs 100% tax free when others (with similar levels of assets in their estates) don’t?
It's not exactly 'deserve to'.
For us townies, in terms of beauty, conservation, recreational amenity, long-term stewardship of the countryside etc, it is seen as a better outcome if agriculture is done by family farmers with a long-term interest in the land rather than agribusinesses. It's not cut and dried, but I'm willing to buy that. The IHT dodge is a way of trying to keep farms in the hands of families with a long-term interest rather than agribusinesses. I'm not convinced it's 100% effective, mind. But that's the reason for it. What we should be arguing about is how we better effect that particular outcome (if we are agreed that the outcome is worthwhile - I think it is, but am open to persuasion.)
Unfortunately the net outcome of the IHT dodge has been to drive up the price of agricultural land even further out of reach of ordinary farmers.
It seems to me that this is a classic case of subsidising a proxy for the thing you want in the hope that you will get more of that thing & discovering that the market will very efficiently drive up the price of the proxy instead.
No it hasn't. We had this discussion yesterday. Farm land values didn't start to increase until almost 2 decades after the introduction of INT relief.
It seems plausible that pre 2006, the wealthy were evading IHT by putting assets into trust. When trusts were hit with a 6% per decade asset tax, they started putting their money into one of the few UK assets that were still 100% free of inheritance tax: farmland.
THe IHT relief which is what we are talking about came in in the early 1980s.
I think you have missed my point: 100% relief on IHT for farmland may have been introduced in the 1980s, but the wealthy at that point could evade IHT by putting their assets into trust: they had no extra incentive to buy any more farmland than they already owned as it made no difference to their tax position.
When the tax treatment of trusts changed in 2006, suddenly farmland is one of the very few assets you can own that you can pass onto your heirs tax free & so the wealthy (& moderately weathly) start buying it in enough size to move the market significantly.
That’s the argument I’m making. It seems a plausible one?
Ah I see. I agree. But in that case deal with that directly by having tax rules specifically for those investors. We have already mentioned grandfathering. It is not difficult unless, like TSE, you have an abiding hatred of farmers.
Fake news.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
So because you hate tax dodgers you support a policy that will not penalise tax dodgers but will attack farmers.
I agree, the rate should be the 40% IHT rate that everyone else has to pay on their assets. None of this mealy-mouthed 20% nonsense.
And goodbye to all family owned businesses in Britain. Nice one.
Incidentally, family owned businesses are going to be hit with a 20% IHT as well, but no one seems to have clocked this yet.
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
They'll have a way better profit/ROI/EBIDTA than any farm with a similar size balance sheet.
Yes - because the current price of their assets are not over inflated due to their previous use as a tax avoidance scheme.
In reality farm land shouldn't be that expensive - but it would require changing a few things in ways would really cause farmers to scream. One of which would be for housing lands to be allocated by councils with the council getting most of the increase in value...
I'm near the Beckton end of the aforementioned super sewer and the construction work on the site has been incredible. Apparently the updated Beckton Sewage Treatment works will be able to handle 600 Olympic-sized pools worth of water (and other things). There are all sorts of buildings and pipework.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
I don't think pheasant counts as vegan because, unlike deer, the population needs a lot of support to attain the numbers they have at the moment..
Otoh, they have less intelligence than most vegetables.
Plenty of pheasants run wild now. I sometimes get them in my garden, along with deer, badger, fox, owls etc.
The central issue as I see it is that people don't take the concept of "food security" seriously. They point to imports and the limitless availability of foods from across the planet in Aldi (in particular from Bordeaux, ahem) and scorn the idea that a country should be able to feed itself from its own resources.
Now, is that a sensible view? We have had COVID and Ukraine which tested this to the limits perhaps (or was it just panic buying/hoarding).
If we really think that food security is an issue then it matters that farms are afforded protection and incentives in a non-monopolistic way (what happens if Farmer Ted's farm is bought by Russian AgriGrain Inc). If we don't, it doesn't.
We don't have food security anyway. We only grow 60% of our calories, a lot of what we grow depends on imports from other parts of the world, and the value of what we grow is subject to the vagaries of world markets.
It would take an enormous, fiscally crippling intervention to resolve all of that.
The UK was last self-sufficient in food around the mid 18th century. Up until the mid 19th we could feed outselves most of the time, but a poor harvest would have led to starvation without imports. Since the 1830s or so we have never been self-sufficient in food.
Arguably we could (just about) be self-sufficient if we ditched beef cattle, and reduced pig and chicken numbers to those that could be fed only on food waste / forage on scrap land, plus what feed could be grown on land unsuitable for growing human edible crops. We’d effectively be subsisting on a constrained, very seasonal vegetarian diet supplemented with a little extra meat.
Veganism is the answer.
Oh boy, you're going to lose so badly in 2029.
I thought the sarcasm was palpable!
But it's true. The kind of self-sufficiency Topping is looking for could only be achieved that way.
I'm not saying I'm looking for it, I'm saying that we have as a matter of course dismissed it as being something we should care about. I don't know what the number is - did someone say 60%? If that is the right answer then we should understand the implications of needing to import 40% of our food needs. And not be surprised when something interrupts the process.
As for the farming thing in general, you don't need me to tell you that @A_View_From_Cumbria5 had it right. It is basically illegal to do anything other with (your own) farmland than farm. Now, you may say how come people ended up with 500 acres while others are renting on the 4th floor of a tower block.
But as it stands, the government is penalising people for something they are forced to do. And one of the unintended consequences will be an increase in legal firms looking to gain planning permission for erstwhile agricultural use land. I'm not sure that's what we want, either.
A few new villages to house people would solve some of the housing crisis...
Comments
I've been using eSims for a while but now all Sims are redundant?
IMHO the council should be required to film it and put on their website, these things are cheap to do nowadays.
Is great for foreign travel and generally I have two eSIMs (EE and O2) and a physical SIM from Vodafone.
Marie Le Conte @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com
·
4m
could we maybe do a protest of people who are currently renting and can't afford to buy property and who also won't inherit enough to ever buy a place
No more of that stupid, infernal, pernickety fiddling with the tiny micro-Sim tray, yay. I love progress
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
Try and build a house on it…
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/addressing-carbon-leakage-risk-to-support-decarbonisation/outcome/factsheet-uk-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
I mean I like to buy phones outright and pay rent for the sim. Does e-sim threaten that model ?
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
Ordered a replacement passport on Thursday and it's just arrived...
Much simpler & fairer to tax everyone equally.
I don’t hate farmers, I hate tax dodgers.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2024/11/19/lame-duck-biden-harris-admin-sanctions-israelis-sends-230m-to-palestinians/
https://x.com/laworfiction/status/1858865673411457401
Those loopholes could be closed relatively easily and the genuine multi-millionaires and above made to pay their fair share. But the govt won't because it doesn't want a fight with them. If they *did* tax multi-millionaire estates properly, they could then exempt farms under, say, £5m land value from IHT altogether.
*innocent face*
I think the numbers of estates details are from HMRC.
Land prices have rocket by 4-5x since 2000 on published numbers, so perhaps what we actually need is lower farmland prices so that farmland becomes about farming, rather than tax-dodging or speculation or land banking.
That will also help with the remove the "but but but I only get a 0.7% return" thing.
I'm not much of a fan of Will Hutton. However, he has something here.
Wait for the squealing when they address land banking and windfall planning gains on land sold for development.
Makes everything better. Squared.
And I've just eaten my lunch roll, of cold panfried breast of pheasant* with watercress and mayonnaise.
*From a local farm-type shop. Admittedly. Which does at least reduce the chain.
*also innocent face*
I'm sure he never gets a day off from farming his 5000 acre estate. What with lambing and milking and all that.
One US friend couldn’t stop laughing when he saw a local travel agent’s called Beaver Travel.
Though yes there is zero chance of a Starmer government doing a trade deal with Trump's US
But it's true. The kind of self-sufficiency Topping is looking for could only be achieved that way.
It seems I have to educate some on here about how local Government actually works as apart from how some think it works.
Most Council meetings (including Cabinet meetings) are made up of a Part 1 and a Part 2. The Part 1 is open to the public and the Part 1 reports are usually available in advance on the Council's own website.
Part 2 is where the public are excluded and the Councillors get to discuss confidential items - often related to property transactions, very senior appointments or contract awards. Reports can have a Part 2 element which wouldn't be seen by the public. Part 2 discussions have to be held in private because the Council has to function as a business on occasions and has to be able to deliberate on business-sensitive matters in private.
Part 2 reports can eventually be disclosed under Freedom of Information but only when the relevant commercial transaction or appointment has been made.
https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/australia-and-new-zealand-trade-deals-come-into-force/#:~:text=31 May 2023.-,The trade agreements that the UK concluded with Australia and,eliminate tariffs for agricultural products.
Reform UK: 35%
Conservative: 61%
All Britons: 71%
Labour: 84%
Lib Dem: 85%
Green: 92%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1858839312239874432
Interesting to see so called liberals as protectionist and pro tariff as Trump and Le Pen though on any trade with any nation outside the EU
Possibly because the vast majority of “family-owned” businesses are much smaller than the exemption threshold of £1million?
Get out there. Be confident. Put on a proper jacket and polish your brogues
Names of certain activities and London letting firms redacted to avoid the chances of a Non-Crime Hate Incident.
Otoh, they have less intelligence than most vegetables.
As for the farming thing in general, you don't need me to tell you that @A_View_From_Cumbria5 had it right. It is basically illegal to do anything other with (your own) farmland than farm. Now, you may say how come people ended up with 500 acres while others are renting on the 4th floor of a tower block.
But as it stands, the government is penalising people for something they are forced to do. And one of the unintended consequences will be an increase in legal firms looking to gain planning permission for erstwhile agricultural use land. I'm not sure that's what we want, either.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1858879218639106274?t=sUTJEAYPnx3jEIlmXO0KdQ&s=19
You have the advantage of being able to do so without running foul of reservation of benefit rules.
In reality farm land shouldn't be that expensive - but it would require changing a few things in ways would really cause farmers to scream. One of which would be for housing lands to be allocated by councils with the council getting most of the increase in value...
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1858842497025290614