Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.7 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,669,135 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,589,790 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,337 2.3
Lead 79,345
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 99 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3
Lead 80,770
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Good afternoon everyone. 5-6 inches of snow - whodathunkit.
What a morning !
At breakfast the last insulin pump went off like a fire alarm (literally) and insisted that it was broken and be uninstalled; the new ones due to arrive by 9am didn't because of 'roadworks' in the lane (as if), and the snow. So they arrived whilst I am at the hospital for a checkup. The message arrived "left them at number 15 with the neighbour"; I am number 7x, so where the hell had they gone? \Now found - he had come on from the wrong side, and ended up at the back.
The complications of changing treatment regimen.
Brand new car parking regime at the hospital, which means the pedestrian blocking buggers are under control again. Quite interesting - the systems clocks you in by number plate, pay on leaving the building, and it reads your plate before it lets you out of the car park. No printed tickets.
Car park half empty either due to the people who don't need to use their vehicles not using them - or maybe due to snow-lateness, or Morrisons next door gaining hospital visitors in their car park. Time will tell.
Now back home with most things sorted.
This is my photo quota for the day, taken at 2pm. Selfish bastard completely blocking a much used pavement right up against a road works sign. The footway there is 1.75m wide, so he has left about a foot for wheelchairs. It has been there since last night. Who the hell ARE these people?
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 ...
Good point. I shall reassess.
Perhaps it comes down to lack of natural predator? Where we, reluctantly, must take up the slack.
Good afternoon everyone. 5-6 inches of snow - whodathunkit.
What a morning !
At breakfast the last insulin pump went off like a fire alarm (literally) and insisted that it was broken and be uninstalled; the new ones due to arrive by 9am didn't because of 'roadworks' in the lane (as if), and the snow. So they arrived whilst I am at the hospital for a checkup. The message arrived "left them at number 15 with the neighbour"; I am number 7x, so where the hell had they gone? \Now found - he had come on from the wrong side, and ended up at the back.
The complications of changing treatment regimen.
Brand new car parking regime at the hospital, which means the pedestrian blocking buggers are under control again. Quite interesting - the systems clocks you in by number plate, pay on leaving the building, and it reads your plate before it lets you out of the car park. No printed tickets.
Car park half empty either due to the people who don't need to use their vehicles not using them - or maybe due to snow-lateness, or Morrisons next door gaining hospital visitors in their car park. Time will tell.
Now back home with most things sorted.
This is my photo quota for the day, taken at 2pm. Selfish bastard completely blocking a much used pavement right up against a road works sign. The footway there is 1.75m wide, so he has left about a foot for wheelchairs. It has been there since last night. Who the hell ARE these people.
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.
Some huge number of pheasants, in the millions, remain unshot, come Feb 1st.
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.
Oh they certainly fly wild, but you'll often find they've been reared by a gamekeeper. Around 15 million a year.
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...
Have you seen how much building is going on atm in the UK.
Your regular reminder that Reform voters are wrong about everything.
And that ~8% of respondents are ticking boxes at random - here the 8% of 'Greens' who don't believe climate is changing as a result of human activity; formerly the Brexit-loving Lib Dem voters
Good afternoon everyone. 5-6 inches of snow - whodathunkit.
What a morning !
At breakfast the last insulin pump went off like a fire alarm (literally) and insisted that it was broken and be uninstalled; the new ones due to arrive by 9am didn't because of 'roadworks' in the lane (as if), and the snow. So they arrived whilst I am at the hospital for a checkup. The message arrived "left them at number 15 with the neighbour"; I am number 7x, so where the hell had they gone? \Now found - he had come on from the wrong side, and ended up at the back.
The complications of changing treatment regimen.
Brand new car parking regime at the hospital, which means the pedestrian blocking buggers are under control again. Quite interesting - the systems clocks you in by number plate, pay on leaving the building, and it reads your plate before it lets you out of the car park. No printed tickets.
Car park half empty either due to the people who don't need to use their vehicles not using them - or maybe due to snow-lateness, or Morrisons next door gaining hospital visitors in their car park. Time will tell.
Now back home with most things sorted.
This is my photo quota for the day, taken at 2pm. Selfish bastard completely blocking a much used pavement right up against a road works sign. The footway there is 1.75m wide, so he has left about a foot for wheelchairs. It has been there since last night. Who the hell ARE these people.
Pavement parking really annoys me and to be fair it is illegal
Not only does it affect wheelchair users but also those pushing young children in a pram
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.
Oh they certainly fly wild, but you'll often find they've been reared by a gamekeeper. Around 15 million a year.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.7 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,669,135 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,589,790 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,337 2.3
Lead 79,345
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 99 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3
Lead 80,770
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
It’s an indictment of Lake that she could not win a State that Trump carried easily.
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.
Oh they certainly fly wild, but you'll often find they've been reared by a gamekeeper. Around 15 million a year.
I'm wrong. Estimates vary wildly. RSPB: 30 million. GWCT: up to 50 million.
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...
Have you seen how much building is going on atm in the UK.
I’m trying to imagine response if a farmer started building a village on his land without permission.
There's a whole lot of politics and opportunism at work here and many in towns and cities won't appreciate or understand the depth of farmer hostility to what will seem to many as a sensible proposal.
As with winter fuel allowance, there's a germ of a good idea here but the implementation (and the optics of that implementation) have been very poor.
There's also the whole question of valuing land which, rather like with wfa, leaves you with more or fewer "winners" and "losers" depending on how the calculation is done.
Needless to say, all this is a consequence of Labour boxing themselves in with commitments not to raise income tax and VAT rates. Brown and Blair could get away with this in 1997 given the state of the economy but the incoming Government has little room for manoeuvre.
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.
Chav hunting with hounds and horses.
Where do we draw the line at who is a chav?
Is it like with Taxes where those calling for a rise make the target just right where they don’t fall in to that band?
Is it simpler that anyone who can’t ride is hunted?
Family in Debretts/Burke’s/?
Dangerous ground for people to assume they won’t be amongst the hunted.
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...
Have you seen how much building is going on atm in the UK.
And yet Barratts are building less houses than they did last year and expect to build even fewer next year.
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.
The incoming US government seems to be determined to increase US food standards, to be somewhat closer to European and Australian standards.
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.
The incoming US government seems to be determined to increase US food standards, to be somewhat closer to European and Australian standards.
And also intent on promoting anti-vax shittiness.
You can't promote one without accepting the other.
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.
The incoming US government seems to be determined to increase US food standards, to be somewhat closer to European and Australian standards.
I will believe that when I see it - RFK seems a bit random in his ideas...
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.
Neither Newark nor Mansfield (where your A&E hospital is located) are strictly cities (small market town, big market town). And the 8 minute to 35 minutes rise is because the A&E at Newark (closed in 2010) became an Urgent Treatment Centre at Newark, and A&E at Mansfield.
My question is what is the more important for life saving - the time for an ambulance with treatment facilities to arrive, or the time to get to an A&E dept?
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 badger, fox and owl are presumably just waiting for the pheasants to land?
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.
Oh they certainly fly wild, but you'll often find they've been reared by a gamekeeper. Around 15 million a year.
The sheer volume of fauna in my garden is immense.
It’s because it’s a large garden (3/8 of an acre), surrounded by other large gardens (a 1930’s housing estate, which required big gardens), adjoining two parks, and woodlands.
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 badger, fox and owl are presumably just waiting for the pheasants to land?
It’s basically a meat platter. We come across mangled remains of pheasants and wood pigeons.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
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 badger, fox and owl are presumably just waiting for the pheasants to land?
It’s basically a meat platter. We come across mangled remains of pheasants and wood pigeons.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
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 ...
Good point. I shall reassess.
Perhaps it comes down to lack of natural predator? Where we, reluctantly, must take up the slack.
Why would we be reluctant? It's good fun, makes for great healthy meat, and far more pleasant for the deer than being ripped apart by a pack of wolves, which is the charming future that most rewilding nutters have in mind for 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.
Deer also (often) rely on crops. Farm fields, saplings, my friend's garden ...
Good point. I shall reassess.
Perhaps it comes down to lack of natural predator? Where we, reluctantly, must take up the slack.
Why would we be reluctant? It's good fun, makes for great healthy meat, and far more pleasant for the deer than being ripped apart by a pack of wolves, which is the charming future that most rewilding nutters have in mind for them.
The main effect wolves would have isn't in the actual predation, but the stress of their presence would reduce breeding rates.
And I'm more of a conservationist than an animal rights activist. My cycling is powered by meat pies.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
We'd end up building shitty flats. Again.
I think a three or four-storey tenement is roughly the right balance.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.7 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,669,135 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,589,790 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,337 2.3
Lead 79,345
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 99 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3
Lead 80,770
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
We'd end up building shitty flats. Again.
I think a three or four-storey tenement is roughly the right balance.
Then we'll be building shitty three or four-storey tenements in totally unliveable areas, because we cram them in.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
We'd end up building shitty flats. Again.
I think a three or four-storey tenement is roughly the right balance.
Then we'll be building shitty three or four-storey tenements in totally unliveable areas, because we cram them in.
That's what we're doing with Barrett boxes anyway. Might as well get more housing out of the same amount of land, particularly in proximity to cities.
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 ...
Good point. I shall reassess.
Perhaps it comes down to lack of natural predator? Where we, reluctantly, must take up the slack.
Why would we be reluctant? It's good fun, makes for great healthy meat, and far more pleasant for the deer than being ripped apart by a pack of wolves, which is the charming future that most rewilding nutters have in mind for them.
Lynx
We wouldn’t even know they were here, except by the lack of deer.
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 did some sums on this a few threads back,
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
Especially if we build flats like a normal European country, rather than plastering the place with "shitty chateaus".
We'd end up building shitty flats. Again.
I think a three or four-storey tenement is roughly the right balance.
Then we'll be building shitty three or four-storey tenements in totally unliveable areas, because we cram them in.
That's what we're doing with Barrett boxes anyway. Might as well get more housing out of the same amount of land, particularly in proximity to cities.
Interesting. The change to trust law. Very helpful. I was in favour of the IHT changes because the default inheritance of farms undermines innovation.
I’d definitely support people being connected to the land, but not at an environmental cost. We need to increase the carbon sequestration function of agricultural holdings. That can change the world.
Big Ag and Big Food are not on our side long term.
Maybe we should look at other ways to tax the wealth held in land ?
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.4 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,663,717 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,584,450 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 74,925 2.3
Lead 79,267
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press
Arizona Senate. Estimated 98.7 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,669,135 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,589,790 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,337 2.3
Lead 79,345
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 99 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1 Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7 Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3
Lead 80,770
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Comments
Votes received and percentages of total vote
Candidate Votes Pct.
Ruben Gallego DEM 1,673,689 50.1
Kari Lake GOP 1,592,919 47.7
Eduardo Quintana GRN 75,630 2.3
Lead 80,770
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
What a morning !
At breakfast the last insulin pump went off like a fire alarm (literally) and insisted that it was broken and be uninstalled; the new ones due to arrive by 9am didn't because of 'roadworks' in the lane (as if), and the snow. So they arrived whilst I am at the hospital for a checkup. The message arrived "left them at number 15 with the neighbour"; I am number 7x, so where the hell had they gone? \Now found - he had come on from the wrong side, and ended up at the back.
The complications of changing treatment regimen.
Brand new car parking regime at the hospital, which means the pedestrian blocking buggers are under control again. Quite interesting - the systems clocks you in by number plate, pay on leaving the building, and it reads your plate before it lets you out of the car park. No printed tickets.
Car park half empty either due to the people who don't need to use their vehicles not using them - or maybe due to snow-lateness, or Morrisons next door gaining hospital visitors in their car park. Time will tell.
Now back home with most things sorted.
This is my photo quota for the day, taken at 2pm. Selfish bastard completely blocking a much used pavement right up against a road works sign. The footway there is 1.75m wide, so he has left about a foot for wheelchairs. It has been there since last night. Who the hell ARE these people?
Perhaps it comes down to lack of natural predator? Where we, reluctantly, must take up the slack.
Not only does it affect wheelchair users but also those pushing young children in a pram
It is selfish, inconsiderate and wrong
LOL
Storm Shadow?
As with winter fuel allowance, there's a germ of a good idea here but the implementation (and the optics of that implementation) have been very poor.
There's also the whole question of valuing land which, rather like with wfa, leaves you with more or fewer "winners" and "losers" depending on how the calculation is done.
Needless to say, all this is a consequence of Labour boxing themselves in with commitments not to raise income tax and VAT rates. Brown and Blair could get away with this in 1997 given the state of the economy but the incoming Government has little room for manoeuvre.
Is it like with Taxes where those calling for a rise make the target just right where they don’t fall in to that band?
Is it simpler that anyone who can’t ride is hunted?
Family in Debretts/Burke’s/?
Dangerous ground for people to assume they won’t be amongst the hunted.
You can't promote one without accepting the other.
My question is what is the more important for life saving - the time for an ambulance with treatment facilities to arrive, or the time to get to an A&E dept?
Does the "time to reach A&E" have a target time?
NEW THREAD
It’s because it’s a large garden (3/8 of an acre), surrounded by other large gardens (a 1930’s housing estate, which required big gardens), adjoining two parks, and woodlands.
The extra land needed for even 2 million additional homes won't particularly touch the sides of the UK's current agricultural land.
And I'm more of a conservationist than an animal rights activist. My cycling is powered by meat pies.
We wouldn’t even know they were here, except by the lack of deer.
I’d definitely support people being connected to the land, but not at an environmental cost. We need to increase the carbon sequestration function of agricultural holdings. That can change the world.
Big Ag and Big Food are not on our side long term.
Maybe we should look at other ways to tax the wealth held in land ?