Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I've crafted the perfect policy to win your vote: an exemption from inheritance tax for anyone who allows a mobile phone mast to be built on their land.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, Farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy reflects on us more than anything.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
Your voting record suggests otherwise, Corbyn in 2017 and 2019.
The 2017 manifesto was not far left and it's silly to suggest otherwise.
I am on the centre/centre left. I think deep down from our many conversations you know that so I am not sure why you've decided to change your mind now.
But at any rate, if your party does want to win younger voters and build a long term coalition, what I said about housing is where you need to look.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, Farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy reflects on us more than anything.
Yes, even marginal changes to taxes and benefits cause such vapours and pearl clutching that it makes virtually any change in direction impossible.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I've crafted the perfect policy to win your vote: an exemption from inheritance tax for anyone who allows a mobile phone mast to be built on their land.
Not really, what the government does on mobile phone masts has virtually no impact on my vote. Planning in general, absolutely. But that feeds more into my view on that system being completely broken.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, Farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy reflects on us more than anything.
Yes, even marginal changes to taxes and benefits cause such vapours and pearl clutching that it makes virtually any change in direction impossible.
The digital right wing have gone a bit silly since the election. The hyperbole and ad hom is impressive. Even relatively sensible folk shout traitor.
Anyway @MaxPB despite your errors on my political standing and calling me far left which is just flat out wrong, I am glad you are posting again as I've missed your contributions here. I hope you are doing well.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy is a product of us as a whole more than anything.
As the saying goes, we get the politicians, and politics, we deserve. Presumably the only way to end that is for tweaks and can-kicking to totally fail, and crappy as things get that is generally avoidable.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
Voters in the centre ground need to eat, no farms no food.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
Politically, the most sensible thing is for Labour to ditch this policy.
But I really think in principle it is the right thing to do. I just can't agree with the idea that we should pick and choose who should be immune from inheritance tax.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
Voters in the centre ground need to eat, no farms no food
This is silly hyperbole HYUFD.
I am in the cohort of voter that a Tory Party could win over if it would like to try. I am not yet picking up any idea that the Tories opposing this policy is a winner. That may change of course,
As I said, 57% of voters oppose the tractor tax, including 56% of voters who switched to Labour in July but voted Conservative in 2019
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
Voters in the centre ground need to eat, no farms no food
This is silly hyperbole HYUFD.
I am in the cohort of voter that a Tory Party could win over if it would like to try. I am not yet picking up any idea that the Tories opposing this policy is a winner. That may change of course,
As I said, 57% of voters oppose the tractor tax, including 56% of voters who switched to Labour in July but voted Conservative in 2019
Questions, questions. Look at the wording. It's so badly written in that tweet it could be read either yes or no.
And the questions aren't direct opposites. The negative one introduces new concepts.
Frankly, whether it's popular or not, I just can't see that this shifts votes alone.
Perhaps as part of a bigger shift it might do but the thing that will end it for SKS is the economy being in a hole or immigration running wild.
Also, Labour has made a decision, they should jolly well stick by it. I am utterly fed up with politicians ducking decisions or rowing back on them when it gets tough, Liz Truss excepted for being a loon.
They will lose a lot of respect from me if they go back on this.
It's very rare that any one single issue shifts lots of votes. What is more common is that an accumulation of issues is stitched together to tell a story, either positive or negative, that overall shifts lots of votes.
The IHT issue could end up stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that the Tory party under Badenoch is not serious about doing the hard, unpleasant things, that are required to keep a nation's finances on an even keel. Or, it might be stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that Badenoch's Tories will fight for them, and for a better future for all of Britain, against the socialist miseries of Starmer's Labour.
As to which story wins out - I don't know! In part it will depend on whether Starmer's government is broadly a success or a failure. If the economy stagnates, not enough houses are built, and the NHS remains mired in crisis, then the voters will be looking for a story that explains Labour's failure and offers a way to end it. And vice versa.
And, if Badenoch had not taken up the mantle of defending the IHT exemption for farmland owners, then she would have ceded that leadership of the opposition role to Farage, and that would be fatal for the future chances of the Tories.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
The Tories can win the votes of the next generation if they do some work on housing.
But they'd have to give up their NIMBY obsession.
It was local plans with too many new homes in them on greenbelt land that saw lots of Tory councils go LD, Independent and Green and NOC in the local elections this year and last
The Tories can win the votes of the next generation if they do some work on housing.
But they'd have to give up their NIMBY obsession.
It was local plans with too many new homes in them that saw lots of Tory councils go LD, Independent and Green and NOC in the local elections this year and last
I can totally understand why politically they don't do it. But we simply can't go on with the system we have.
The Tories can win the votes of the next generation if they do some work on housing.
But they'd have to give up their NIMBY obsession.
It would take some visionary leadership to go against the short term gains of NIMBYism.
New towns are the answer, as they have been in the past. This sidesteps Nimbyism at the cost of needing more new infrastructure.
The places selected presumably don't like it, but you annoy fewer people overall probably. I've even seen some NIMBY politicians support the idea (as they won't be in their areas, obviously).
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, Farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy reflects on us more than anything.
Yes, even marginal changes to taxes and benefits cause such vapours and pearl clutching that it makes virtually any change in direction impossible.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
Goodness me, even Torsten Bell can't get the numbers right.
Tax due if parents hand on £3m house is actually £800k.
The rest of his tweet is correct.
We seem to now live in a country where almost nobody is numerate.
Anything, even the simplest concept, is too much for 95% of people to understand if it involves numbers.
Victoria Derbyshire (much praised) kept on saying on BBC2 Newsnight that farmers paid half the IHT of everyone else. This is outright wrong - as illustrated by the above example.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Then we just need to be honest and give tax breaks to everyone we view - today, tomorrow, thursday, but not tuesday - as essential in some way.
Having known a lot of small farmers/producers being crushed and steam-rollered into dust by agribusiness being cheered on in the name of efficiency and 'the consumer' I'm not entirely convinced that the current headline writers have the best interest of the poor ol' family farm at their hearts.
If I was a cynical type - which I try not to be - I might think it was just an emotional heart-string being tugged in order to question inheritance tax more broadly by people who, forgive me, might make their living on things less essential than the food supply, and have a lot of capital to pass on to their offspring. Possibly via buying up smallholdings.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Target? Perhaps not. But repel? That's a different matter. You can squeeze in some vital votes from people who at least don't outright hate you.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
Voters in the centre ground need to eat, no farms no food
This is silly hyperbole HYUFD.
I am in the cohort of voter that a Tory Party could win over if it would like to try. I am not yet picking up any idea that the Tories opposing this policy is a winner. That may change of course,
As I said, 57% of voters oppose the tractor tax, including 56% of voters who switched to Labour in July but voted Conservative in 2019
Questions, questions. Look at the wording. It's so badly written in that tweet it could be read either yes or no.
And the questions aren't direct opposites. The negative one introduces new concepts.
Frankly, whether it's popular or not, I just can't see that this shifts votes alone.
Perhaps as part of a bigger shift it might do but the thing that will end it for SKS is the economy being in a hole or immigration running wild.
Also, Labour has made a decision, they should jolly well stick by it. I am utterly fed up with politicians ducking decisions or rowing back on them when it gets tough, Liz Truss excepted for being a loon.
They will lose a lot of respect from me if they go back on this.
It's very rare that any one single issue shifts lots of votes. What is more common is that an accumulation of issues is stitched together to tell a story, either positive or negative, that overall shifts lots of votes.
The IHT issue could end up stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that the Tory party under Badenoch is not serious about doing the hard, unpleasant things, that are required to keep a nation's finances on an even keel. Or, it might be stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that Badenoch's Tories will fight for them, and for a better future for all of Britain, against the socialist miseries of Starmer's Labour.
As to which story wins out - I don't know! In part it will depend on whether Starmer's government is broadly a success or a failure. If the economy stagnates, not enough houses are built, and the NHS remains mired in crisis, then the voters will be looking for a story that explains Labour's failure and offers a way to end it. And vice versa.
And, if Badenoch had not taken up the mantle of defending the IHT exemption for farmland owners, then she would have ceded that leadership of the opposition role to Farage, and that would be fatal for the future chances of the Tories.
Essentially I agree with you but you put it much better than my feeble attempt.
At the moment I am leaning failure for Starmer's government and so this stuff will go altogether to build up a picture of that. But I still stand by my essential point that this is not the issue that means it's the end.
I think people are wishcasting the end of Starmer and Labour far too early. It's literally not even 2025 yet.
As somebody that spent 2017 and 2019 doing that, I get going down that path but it really does impact your views, I think.
I've got no issue with Badenoch standing with farmers as I feel that's a sincerely held view she has and for that I offer nothing but respect to her. But saying you don't like something is very easy when you've just spent the previous 14 years ducking decisions.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
I just think it's quite depressing that the Tories don't wish to try and target any younger voters, who are overwhelmingly on the centre. What does that say for the future?
For what it's worth, Labour haven't done much either but at least they said something on housing.
I just feel utterly depressed as a younger person at the party offerings in general. As I said, it wouldn't be much to win over younger voters, Trump has just done so.
I checked and followed the links. I even assumed a different company of the same name. Nope.
What the hell are they playing at?
Well, we're talking about it. All publicity is good publicity and all that*
*this is not true.
As if to make your point, I am so angry I shall cancel my (entirely fictitious and in my head because it’s not in my price range) deposit and go for a Rolls instead.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Target? Perhaps not. But repel? That's a different matter. You can squeeze in some vital votes from people who at least don't outright hate you.
Disagree. For example the sweet spot for Labour in 2024 is likely to actively alienate both residual Tory voters.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Target? Perhaps not. But repel? That's a different matter. You can squeeze in some vital votes from people who at least don't outright hate you.
Disagree. For example the sweet spot for Labour in 2024 is likely to actively alienate both residual Tory voters.
On a different tax topic, whilst I am in principle in favour of charging VAT on school fees, I just think Labour should have made state schools better in the first place.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
I just think it's quite depressing that the Tories don't wish to try and target any younger voters, who are overwhelmingly on the centre. What does that say for the future?
For what it's worth, Labour haven't done much either but at least they said something on housing.
I just feel utterly depressed as a younger person at the party offerings in general. As I said, it wouldn't be much to win over younger voters, Trump has just done so.
Firstly, I don’t represent “the Tories” and secondly you have to see that there are many “young people” to be targeted who aren’t the same as you. Something on housing? Yeah, they’ll do a new Help to Buy wheeze. But otherwise I suspect they’ll be going for more of the Delboy vote you can see in amongst the gig economy.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Target? Perhaps not. But repel? That's a different matter. You can squeeze in some vital votes from people who at least don't outright hate you.
Disagree. For example the sweet spot for Labour in 2024 is likely to actively alienate both residual Tory voters.
I am not sure I understand, what do you mean?
When the Tory vote is this small (two men and a dog but the dog is wavering) Labour isn’t sad if it alienates it; and the reverse is true. The Tories need not worry about alienating some voters they will never get.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
I just think it's quite depressing that the Tories don't wish to try and target any younger voters, who are overwhelmingly on the centre. What does that say for the future?
For what it's worth, Labour haven't done much either but at least they said something on housing.
I just feel utterly depressed as a younger person at the party offerings in general. As I said, it wouldn't be much to win over younger voters, Trump has just done so.
Firstly, I don’t represent “the Tories” and secondly you have to see that there are many “young people” to be targeted who aren’t the same as you. Something on housing? Yeah, they’ll do a new Help to Buy wheeze. But otherwise I suspect they’ll be going for more of the Delboy vote you can see in amongst the gig economy.
I wasn't trying to say you did represent them, so I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
I am a younger person and I think I have a fairly good barometer of what matters to them. Housing, tuition fees and in some quarters, immigration.
The vote of people in the gig economy is fine and a good place to start - but what are they going to offer these voters in your view?
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
Target? Perhaps not. But repel? That's a different matter. You can squeeze in some vital votes from people who at least don't outright hate you.
Disagree. For example the sweet spot for Labour in 2024 is likely to actively alienate both residual Tory voters.
I am not sure I understand, what do you mean?
When the Tory vote is this small (two men and a dog but the dog is wavering) Labour isn’t sad if it alienates it; and the reverse is true. The Tories need not worry about alienating some voters they will never get.
I think the point being made earlier was that Labour is potentially alienating its newer rural constituency vote with this move?
As for the Tories, I think your analysis of what they are doing is right. I just don't agree that they should have to do that and not try and win voters in the next generation at the same time. I think if they want to win again they need to build a broader coalition.
Anyway, some interesting points as always, good to have views that don't just echo my own as I expect I would hear in my own life if I talked about this stuff with my closest friends.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
One of the sage election experts invited to talk about the Irish election on radio recently was talking about how Irish voters liked to be asked for their vote. Now, in the Irish context, where the constitution ensures that there's at least one TD for every 30,000 people, they mean this literally. The voters want to be asked, personally, by the candidates for their vote. And they often will be.
Even in Britain, though, people will like to think that the parties are trying to convince them. Even someone like me who has few qualms about adopting the far-left label (except insofar as people will ascribe views to me that I don't hold on that basis), would like to think that a Conservative party leader had aspirations to reach out and lead the whole country, and was at least willing to talk to people with views like mine, rather than to dismiss them out of hand. I want to feel as though a Conservative party leader is asking for my vote, even if my [hopefully polite] refusal is guaranteed. It's a sign to me that they feel we are both part of the same society (albeit I've now left and live in Ireland, but the trendy approach is to talk about how Britain and Ireland share these islands, so it's only a small stretch).
It's one of the things that I find provoking about HYUFD's approach. He is very quick to dismiss out of hand the views of people who deviate one iota from the true path of a Tory. That's not the sort of politics I want.
Frankly if the Tories are looking to win back votes like mine (well probably not mine at this point but many people like me) they need to get off this protesting stuff and onto actual ideas for anyone under the age of 90.
They might be right on the farms thing - but this is an irrelevant issue to the voters in the centre ground.
I am getting strong Labour 2010-2019 vibes. Please don't go down that path.
I'm sorry the Tories aren't going to win the election with votes like yours. They need to win 6 points back from reform and 6-8 points from everyone else. Probably 2 points from the Lib Dems and 4-6 from Labour. They don't need to venture into the far left to get there broadening the party's appeal on the centre right is enough to do it. Sticking up for farmers is a good first step to show small c conservatives who voted Reform that the party does still care about them and their way of life.
I am not "far left" Max and you know it.
The fact that your attitude is that you don't want to try and win votes like mine, people who simply want a bit of action on student fees, building some houses and yes the I word, is disappointing.
I mean, the fact you didn’t vote (or consider voting) Tory in 2019, when they almost maximised their potential, does suggest you shouldn’t be first on the target list.
I didn't say they should target me first, just that if they want to build a coalition for the long term and win some younger voters, they could look at housing. Why would they not want to, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
When did I say it was character mistake? You’re left of centre and not a Tory target, because if they got you they’d have 500 seats. Same (but opposite) reason Labour aren’t interested in me, but the LibDems are.
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
I've been held up quite a few times for voting for Corbyn in 2019 and it's something I freely acknowledge. I got it wrong, I accept that.
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
Ok, but that validates what I said. No Tory Party is going to target you. Why does that bother you?
I just think it's quite depressing that the Tories don't wish to try and target any younger voters, who are overwhelmingly on the centre. What does that say for the future?
For what it's worth, Labour haven't done much either but at least they said something on housing.
I just feel utterly depressed as a younger person at the party offerings in general. As I said, it wouldn't be much to win over younger voters, Trump has just done so.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
It might encourage Mr Investment Manager to buy, but that’s not the same as an incentive to sell.
Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 6h NEW: Guardian & Observer journalists overwhelming vote in favour of strike action in protest at proposed sale of the Observer to Tortoise media.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
It might encourage Mr Investment Manager to buy, but that’s not the same as an incentive to sell.
I think that's the very definition of capitalism, isn't it?
Let's say you make £100,000 a year as a farmer. And let's say that because of the tax breaks, someone will pay you £2m a year for your farm, rather than £1m previously, well you'll be more likely to sell.
That's Economics 101. If something you own goes up in price, while the yield (i.e. the value of the produce you produce) does not, then unless farmers are economically irrational, then you'll see some of them sell.
Now, obviously not all of them. But if you offered £1bn for a 100 acre farm, then who loves farming that much that they would refuse? In other words, it's all about price.
So: this really shouldn't be something we debate. It should be something where the answer is is in the data.
Specifically:
(1) Has the price of farmland increased markedly since the introduction of the policy? (2) Have significant numbers of family farms been sold since the introduction of the policy? (3) Has there been a significant uptick in the likelihood a farm is sold immediately following an inheritace? (4) Are owner-farmers more common now, or before the policy was introduced?
My gut is that this policy will have encouraged family farmers to sell out. Now, my evidence is anecdotal (two of my former colleagues did it, while hiring the former owners to continue to work the land), but there's no point in arguing about it in the absence of data.
And if the policy has led to farmers selling up, then it's had the opposite of the intended effect.
The obvious compromise is the @Malmesbury one: there's no IHT so long as you continue to own the property. But if you sell it, then it crystalizes an inheritance tax event. In other words, real family farms would be OK, but people attempting to skip tax would find themselves with a nasty bill.
They will go all electric, starting with whatever this is:
At least it's vaguely in the shape a proper car and sits fairly low on the ground, unlike the monstrous upright box-blobs that make up most of the vehicles on the roads these days...
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
`
Don't forget though that the tax break will have had the effect of pushing the ROCE down, because it will have pushed the value of land up.
Surely the solution here is the @Malmesbury compromise: i.e. the IHT break exists so long as you don't sell the farm. If you do, then you need to pay it back.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
`
Don't forget though that the tax break will have had the effect of pushing the ROCE down, because it will have pushed the value of land up.
Surely the solution here is the @Malmesbury compromise: i.e. the IHT break exists so long as you don't sell the farm. If you do, then you need to pay it back.
Yep that is exactly the way to do it. Trouble is neither Labour nor the supporters of the tax on here are willing to consider it. They would rather pretend it isn't a problem and all the farmers are either vastly rich or too poor to qualify.
WRT business property relief, you do get organisations like St. James Place, marketing investments that attract it, and which ought not. The people making those investments play no role, working in the business.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
WRT business property relief, you do get organisations like St. James Place, marketing investments that attract it, and which ought not. The people making those investments play no role, working in the business.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
(Amusingly, my former colleagues knew St James's Place *extremely* well.)
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
Why is the profitability of British farms so poor?
My Uncle-in-law's farm is doing well enough to support him, two of his three sons who work on the farm. It's built three new houses for the family in the last five years. They've had spare cash to invest large sums into the business, buying more land, erecting buildings.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
Why is the profitability of British farms so poor?
My Uncle-in-law's farm is doing well enough to support him, two of his three sons who work on the farm. It's built three new houses for the family in the last five years. They've had spare cash to invest large sums into the business, buying more land, erecting buildings.
Why can't British farms make any money?
Because we demand cheap food and the supermarkets enforce those demands. This is not a criticism per se, just a fact.
WRT business property relief, you do get organisations like St. James Place, marketing investments that attract it, and which ought not. The people making those investments play no role, working in the business.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
(Amusingly, my former colleagues knew St James's Place *extremely* well.)
It seems to me that the distinction that needs to be drawn - for IHT - is between owners/managers of farms and SME’s, and those who are simply investors.
For the former, a charge of 20% on the assets needed to work the business can be a real burden. For the latter, anything that gets inherited is a windfall, and 20% is affordable.
The left are coming over as extremely "nasty" in their anti-farm comments.
Well, I'm not of the left, but I'm generally sceptical of giving any industry special treatment. And I'm especially sceptical when the special treatment is abused by other groups of people to avoid taxes.
Am I coming over as nasty?
I have no objection to farmers. They are carrying out economic activity, just like shoemakers, bakers, shopkeepers and insurance entrepreneurs.
But I also struggle to see why they should get special treatment.
Which is why I'd suggest replacing inheritance tax with a small annual gross assets levy. You can pass whatever you like onto your children, free of tax, but for people with assets of more than £1m, you need to make an annual payment 0.1% or 0.2% on the excess.
And this would be payable by anyone owning assets in the UK, not just by UK taxpayers. (I.e. tax the asset, not just resident taxpayers.)
It would probably raise almost exactly the same as IHT. It would avoid massive one-off payments. It wouldn't treat different family run businesses differently depending on the industry they were in.
And it wouldn't distort the market by allowing investment managers to buy up farmland solely for the purpose of avoiding IHT.
I think the difference is that farmers put food on our tables and often it's a pretty thankless andow margin industry. Isn't there a case to be made that having a proper food security reserve is worth a few tax breaks?
Does it have the effect though?
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
The problem is that farms - and other family owned businesses - are in an unusual situation. For them to exist they have to have assets which have a very high paper value - land, machinery, factories etc - but the profit margins are often extremely small. This means that treating them in the same way as other inheritences will almost certainly lead to them being put out of business. Now that may not matter to some people. But I do think that as a nation we do far better having large numbers of family owned businesses rather than a few hundred multinationals owning and running everything. If you want all the family businesses to cease to exist - or at least don't care - then I can follow your thinking on this. But if you bellieve that a diverse range of small businesses and entrepreneurship is something to be valued then you ned to find another way to deal with the genuine issues of investment tax avoidance without hammering the real businessmen - whether they are farmers or boot makers.
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
Why is the profitability of British farms so poor?
My Uncle-in-law's farm is doing well enough to support him, two of his three sons who work on the farm. It's built three new houses for the family in the last five years. They've had spare cash to invest large sums into the business, buying more land, erecting buildings.
Why can't British farms make any money?
Because we demand cheap food and the supermarkets enforce those demands. This is not a criticism per se, just a fact.
My wife says it's a colonial legacy - the struggle for land was a big part of the Irish struggle for Independence from Britain, and the country is relatively depopulated and lacking in industry (by Imperial design), so agriculture has a more important role in the economy and culture, and so the farming lobby has been able to defend the industry from the demand for cheap food.
So my advice to downtrodden British farmers is to form a land league, and to demand land reform from the giant landed estates that have hoarded British agricultural land since the Norman Conquest.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
That BBC report is more pessimistic than the ISW’s assessment, upon which it is based. They note that Russia has suffered 80,000 casualties in two months, lost 200 tanks, and 650 armoured vehicles, during the course of capturing open fields, and small settlements.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 9h Tax due if parents hand on £3m house: £940k Tax due if parents hand on a £3m farm: £0 A reminder of significant tax advantage to farmers vs everyone else AFTER these changes
===
A real problem for Starmer's version of Labour is they don't understand emotion and its role in politics.
We had the same tin ear with making some pensioners freeze this winter.
They paraded all the numbers and talked about credits and schemes and council support and so on.
Have they learnt absolutely nothing from Trump? The Dems trotter the same arguments out: 'look the best economic numbers in years', 'inflation down to 2%', 'job rates at a high' etc etc.
Clarkson and Farage and co understand.
If you're right, it's deeply depressing.
Labour haven't done anything particularly radical at all in the grand scheme of things. Fuel duty remains frozen, farmers still have IHT allowances, there's been a relatively minor change to employer NICs, Miliband had accelerated Net Zero plans by less than 10% compared with the Tory plan. Nothing on social care, health spending is still increasing at an eye-watering rate. Council tax remains deeply unfair.
This age of outrage is going to stifle the ambitions of any politician. Starmer's lethargy is a product of us as a whole more than anything.
Whilst I like Starmer, I think this is a very fair criticism
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
I can see a load of footballers wanting the ship cammo wrap look....
(yes I know they do this to hide details of the actual car).
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
WRT business property relief, you do get organisations like St. James Place, marketing investments that attract it, and which ought not. The people making those investments play no role, working in the business.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
(Amusingly, my former colleagues knew St James's Place *extremely* well.)
It seems to me that the distinction that needs to be drawn - for IHT - is between owners/managers of farms and SME’s, and those who are simply investors.
For the former, a charge of 20% on the assets needed to work the business can be a real burden. For the latter, anything that gets inherited is a windfall, and 20% is affordable.
Indeed: that's also what HMRC tried to do with entrepreneur's relief. The problem is that it's very hard to design systems that don't get corrupted by tax lawyers, such that the major beneficiaries are people far from the farm (or equivalent).
Which raises the question: if we're giving £10 of tax relief to investment bankers for every £1 going to farmers, then is this the right solution to the problem we're trying to solve?
Donald Trump has picked World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) co-founder and his transition co-chair, Linda McMahon, as his nominee for education secretary.
Trump chose Mehmet Oz, a doctor and former television host, to run Medicaid.
WRT business property relief, you do get organisations like St. James Place, marketing investments that attract it, and which ought not. The people making those investments play no role, working in the business.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
(Amusingly, my former colleagues knew St James's Place *extremely* well.)
It seems to me that the distinction that needs to be drawn - for IHT - is between owners/managers of farms and SME’s, and those who are simply investors.
For the former, a charge of 20% on the assets needed to work the business can be a real burden. For the latter, anything that gets inherited is a windfall, and 20% is affordable.
Indeed: that's also what HMRC tried to do with entrepreneur's relief. The problem is that it's very hard to design systems that don't get corrupted by tax lawyers, such that the major beneficiaries are people far from the farm (or equivalent).
Which raises the question: if we're giving £10 of tax relief to investment bankers for every £1 going to farmers, then is this the right solution to the problem we're trying to solve?
So, if it’s true that this farm tax will only affect several hundred people per year, and only raise several hundred million in extra tax (before the accountants and lawyers have a good go at it), why are the government prepared to waste so much political capital on such a small change?
Surely you save your political capital for major taxation changes that raise tens of billions? It comes across as ideological as a result, that the government are at best ambivalent to farming and rural communities. I suspect there will a revival of the Countryside Alliance as there was under Bair’s government, but this time with some newly very famous farmers leading the protests.
There's always a worryingly large amount of random bits that fall off a spacecraft. The people who get in them are proper mad fuckers.
They are indeed!
It’s not the same when you only watch the rockets land in the water rather than back on terra firma. Amazing that bringing them back was thought impossible only a few years ago.
Think it would have been nice of them to mention Coffeezilla (rather than just crib his homework), who has run in-depth stories about his for well over a year now and cost himself a huge amount in lawyers fees to stand up to the lawfare.
So, if it’s true that this farm tax will only affect several hundred people per year, and only raise several hundred million in extra tax (before the accountants and lawyers have a good go at it), why are the government prepared to waste so much political capital on such a small change?
Surely you save your political capital for major taxation changes that raise tens of billions? It comes across as ideological as a result, that the government are at best ambivalent to farming and rural communities. I suspect there will a revival of the Countryside Alliance as there was under Bair’s government, but this time with some newly very famous farmers leading the protests.
It's precisely the same situation as we saw with the Winter Fuel Payments. It's all about desperately scraping around for small change here and there, because they've ruled out most of the big ticket items (either in the manifesto or by filing them in the bin marked "too difficult.") They're burning through all their political capital on tax rises that are questionable or simply wrong headed, failing to raise enough money to shore up the state and provide the benefits and services that will help to convince people they're worth a second term, and relying on their image of toughness looking like decisive action in the national interest, when it often looks more like clumsy errors compounded by a stubborn refusal to admit as much.
This Government is in real danger of falling between two stools: making changes that are just enough to irritate the wealthy whilst being wholly insufficient (and, in the case of the NI raid and the refusal to support local government, positively harmful) to the interests of the less well off. The obvious risk is that, on five years' time, we shall have seen modest improvements in the health service whilst living standards continue to decline and the rest of the public realm keeps on decaying and shutting down. The Government risks going to the country trying to get re-elected on the basis that granny now only has to wait one year rather than three for a hip replacement, only to find itself condemned for making most of the country poorer, against a backdrop of cratered roads, closed libraries and bankrupt councils that collect the bins once every two months and spend everything else on social care services that still fail because of the weight of demand.
The nation requires emergency surgery; what it's going to get is another box of Elastoplast. If this all ends with Drs Badenoch and Farage diagnosing gangrene and cutting off both legs and an arm a few years down the road then the lack of decisive action now will have been to blame.
Think it would have been nice of them to mention Coffeezilla (rather than just crib his homework), who has run in-depth stories about his for well over a year now and cost himself a huge amount in lawyers fees to stand up to the lawfare.
Coffee has indeed been brilliant on this story. You can bet that if it was a journalist from a ‘mainstream’ newspaper or TV programme, the BBC would tell us exactly who was behind the original investigation.
Think it would have been nice of them to mention Coffeezilla (rather than just crib his homework), who has run in-depth stories about his for well over a year now and cost himself a huge amount in lawyers fees to stand up to the lawfare.
Coffee has indeed been brilliant on this story. You can bet that if it was a journalist from a ‘mainstream’ newspaper or TV programme, the BBC would tell us exactly who was behind the original investigation.
I have always been impressed that he has never given into the temptation of taking sponsors. I imagine he has been offered absolute massive deals to sell out.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Which it probably is.
To be fair, advertising agencies have always been full of whatever the equivalent of the day is of shoreditch hipsters.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Which it probably is.
To be fair, advertising agencies have always been full of whatever the equivalent of the day is of shoreditch hipsters.
First on the chopping block when our AI overlords take over.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Which it probably is.
Maybe they had “discovered” a band called New Order and their little known video for a song called True Faith and thought, “Yeah, weird looking people in silly outfits doing strange things is going to be the look this year.”.
Jag has been shafted by the current owners, never been great cars but at least had an image that worked for a clientele. To break into a new market they will need to be either really well made (hmmm) or cheap.
Sadly they weren’t sold to one of the German giants who would have made them well and got a decent range together.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Which it probably is.
Maybe they had “discovered” a band called New Order and their little known video for a song called True Faith and thought, “Yeah, weird looking people in silly outfits doing strange things is going to be the look this year.”.
Jag has been shafted by the current owners, never been great cars but at least had an image that worked for a clientele. To break into a new market they will need to be either really well made (hmmm) or cheap.
Sadly they weren’t sold to one of the German giants who would have made them well and got a decent range together.
Oh it’s worse than that - the prices of the forthcoming Jaguar cars is £100,000+ and I don’t think the market for £100,000 ev cars is that great (or in reality exists at all)
Think it would have been nice of them to mention Coffeezilla (rather than just crib his homework), who has run in-depth stories about his for well over a year now and cost himself a huge amount in lawyers fees to stand up to the lawfare.
Coffee has indeed been brilliant on this story. You can bet that if it was a journalist from a ‘mainstream’ newspaper or TV programme, the BBC would tell us exactly who was behind the original investigation.
I have always been impressed that he has never given into the temptation of taking sponsors. I imagine he has been offered absolute massive deals to sell out.
Same reason the likes of Which? magazine has no adverts, you have to keep up the impression of total impartiality if you’re going to be an investigative journalist. We don’t see enough ethical people in the online space, which is why he stands out so much.
Politically, the most sensible thing is for Labour to ditch this policy.
But I really think in principle it is the right thing to do. I just can't agree with the idea that we should pick and choose who should be immune from inheritance tax.
We should and we do
Privately owned businesses have an exemption because otherwise they typically have to be sold after one generation.
Farms are simply privately owned businesses and should be treated as such
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
I love my Jaguar XE, which I bought in 2017, but they've completely lost their way in the last few years.
There was a time they were competitive with BMWs, Mercedes and Audis, and I'd argue better.
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
Clarkson will be ammused at the nod to him on the number plate on that prototype. JAAAG....
What kind of idiotic director views that advert and thinks:
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
It smacks of an ad designed by a hip liberal metropolitan ad agency rooted in Shoreditch.
Which it probably is.
To be fair, advertising agencies have always been full of whatever the equivalent of the day is of shoreditch hipsters.
First on the chopping block when our AI overlords take over.
At least they didn't try for 'your plastic and metal pal who's fun to be with.'
Comments
yep.
I am on the centre/centre left. I think deep down from our many conversations you know that so I am not sure why you've decided to change your mind now.
But at any rate, if your party does want to win younger voters and build a long term coalition, what I said about housing is where you need to look.
https://x.com/jlr_news/status/1858802707781316739
I didn't consider voting Tory in 2019 because of the leader. To be honest I regret voting in that election at all - but as I've said many times I regret that vote. I would hope that can be acknowledged rather than being held up as some character mistake.
They remind me of the Harris campaign
That’s neither a good nor a bad thing.
But I really think in principle it is the right thing to do. I just can't agree with the idea that we should pick and choose who should be immune from inheritance tax.
The IHT issue could end up stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that the Tory party under Badenoch is not serious about doing the hard, unpleasant things, that are required to keep a nation's finances on an even keel. Or, it might be stitched together as part of a story that tells voters that Badenoch's Tories will fight for them, and for a better future for all of Britain, against the socialist miseries of Starmer's Labour.
As to which story wins out - I don't know! In part it will depend on whether Starmer's government is broadly a success or a failure. If the economy stagnates, not enough houses are built, and the NHS remains mired in crisis, then the voters will be looking for a story that explains Labour's failure and offers a way to end it. And vice versa.
And, if Badenoch had not taken up the mantle of defending the IHT exemption for farmland owners, then she would have ceded that leadership of the opposition role to Farage, and that would be fatal for the future chances of the Tories.
What the hell are they playing at?
But it does grate a bit when people continuously use it as a justification for where they think I politically stand.
I genuinely, sincerely think I stand on the centre/centre left. And anyone who knows me in real life would agree with that. I really can't do much more to convince anyone of that other than what I've posted.
*this is not true.
Tax due if parents hand on £3m house is actually £800k.
The rest of his tweet is correct.
We seem to now live in a country where almost nobody is numerate.
Anything, even the simplest concept, is too much for 95% of people to understand if it involves numbers.
Victoria Derbyshire (much praised) kept on saying on BBC2 Newsnight that farmers paid half the IHT of everyone else. This is outright wrong - as illustrated by the above example.
Having known a lot of small farmers/producers being crushed and steam-rollered into dust by agribusiness being cheered on in the name of efficiency and 'the consumer' I'm not entirely convinced that the current headline writers have the best interest of the poor ol' family farm at their hearts.
If I was a cynical type - which I try not to be - I might think it was just an emotional heart-string being tugged in order to question inheritance tax more broadly by people who, forgive me, might make their living on things less essential than the food supply, and have a lot of capital to pass on to their offspring. Possibly via buying up smallholdings.
At the moment I am leaning failure for Starmer's government and so this stuff will go altogether to build up a picture of that. But I still stand by my essential point that this is not the issue that means it's the end.
I think people are wishcasting the end of Starmer and Labour far too early. It's literally not even 2025 yet.
As somebody that spent 2017 and 2019 doing that, I get going down that path but it really does impact your views, I think.
I've got no issue with Badenoch standing with farmers as I feel that's a sincerely held view she has and for that I offer nothing but respect to her. But saying you don't like something is very easy when you've just spent the previous 14 years ducking decisions.
For what it's worth, Labour haven't done much either but at least they said something on housing.
I just feel utterly depressed as a younger person at the party offerings in general. As I said, it wouldn't be much to win over younger voters, Trump has just done so.
I am a younger person and I think I have a fairly good barometer of what matters to them. Housing, tuition fees and in some quarters, immigration.
The vote of people in the gig economy is fine and a good place to start - but what are they going to offer these voters in your view?
As for the Tories, I think your analysis of what they are doing is right. I just don't agree that they should have to do that and not try and win voters in the next generation at the same time. I think if they want to win again they need to build a broader coalition.
Good evening.
https://x.com/jaguar/status/1858851562883256748
The story’s still unfolding – stay tuned.
Even in Britain, though, people will like to think that the parties are trying to convince them. Even someone like me who has few qualms about adopting the far-left label (except insofar as people will ascribe views to me that I don't hold on that basis), would like to think that a Conservative party leader had aspirations to reach out and lead the whole country, and was at least willing to talk to people with views like mine, rather than to dismiss them out of hand. I want to feel as though a Conservative party leader is asking for my vote, even if my [hopefully polite] refusal is guaranteed. It's a sign to me that they feel we are both part of the same society (albeit I've now left and live in Ireland, but the trendy approach is to talk about how Britain and Ireland share these islands, so it's only a small stretch).
It's one of the things that I find provoking about HYUFD's approach. He is very quick to dismiss out of hand the views of people who deviate one iota from the true path of a Tory. That's not the sort of politics I want.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
Just. No.
Or does the tax break encourage family farmers to sell to Mr Investment Manager who wants to dodge tax?
@carolecadwalla
·
6h
NEW: Guardian & Observer journalists overwhelming vote in favour of strike action in protest at proposed sale of the Observer to Tortoise media.
They will go all electric, starting with whatever this is:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/finally-first-pictures-2026-electric-jaguar-super-gt-revealed
Given that Jaguar have been losing money for two decades even as Land Rover did well, radical steps are required. Not sure this advert is helping, though.
https://jalopnik.com/jaguar-has-no-cars-on-sale-in-the-uk-for-the-first-time-1851687670
In 2023 the average ROCE for farms was 0.5%
`
Let's say you make £100,000 a year as a farmer. And let's say that because of the tax breaks, someone will pay you £2m a year for your farm, rather than £1m previously, well you'll be more likely to sell.
That's Economics 101. If something you own goes up in price, while the yield (i.e. the value of the produce you produce) does not, then unless farmers are economically irrational, then you'll see some of them sell.
Now, obviously not all of them. But if you offered £1bn for a 100 acre farm, then who loves farming that much that they would refuse? In other words, it's all about price.
So: this really shouldn't be something we debate. It should be something where the answer is is in the data.
Specifically:
(1) Has the price of farmland increased markedly since the introduction of the policy?
(2) Have significant numbers of family farms been sold since the introduction of the policy?
(3) Has there been a significant uptick in the likelihood a farm is sold immediately following an inheritace?
(4) Are owner-farmers more common now, or before the policy was introduced?
My gut is that this policy will have encouraged family farmers to sell out. Now, my evidence is anecdotal (two of my former colleagues did it, while hiring the former owners to continue to work the land), but there's no point in arguing about it in the absence of data.
And if the policy has led to farmers selling up, then it's had the opposite of the intended effect.
The obvious compromise is the @Malmesbury one: there's no IHT so long as you continue to own the property. But if you sell it, then it crystalizes an inheritance tax event. In other words, real family farms would be OK, but people attempting to skip tax would find themselves with a nasty bill.
Surely the solution here is the @Malmesbury compromise: i.e. the IHT break exists so long as you don't sell the farm. If you do, then you need to pay it back.
OTOH, the estates of people who actually work in SME’s ought not to be hit by the IHT charge, as that’s just an incentive to sell out to a big corporation.
My Uncle-in-law's farm is doing well enough to support him, two of his three sons who work on the farm. It's built three new houses for the family in the last five years. They've had spare cash to invest large sums into the business, buying more land, erecting buildings.
Why can't British farms make any money?
For the former, a charge of 20% on the assets needed to work the business can be a real burden. For the latter, anything that gets inherited is a windfall, and 20% is affordable.
So my advice to downtrodden British farmers is to form a land league, and to demand land reform from the giant landed estates that have hoarded British agricultural land since the Norman Conquest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14102265/Russia-mass-producing-mobile-bomb-shelters-nukes.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0dpdx420lo
That BBC report is more pessimistic than the ISW’s assessment, upon which it is based. They note that Russia has suffered 80,000 casualties in two months, lost 200 tanks, and 650 armoured vehicles, during the course of capturing open fields, and small settlements.
(yes I know they do this to hide details of the actual car).
“This sums up what Jaguar is about.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLzc9kobDk&
Very interesting interview.
Which raises the question: if we're giving £10 of tax relief to investment bankers for every £1 going to farmers, then is this the right solution to the problem we're trying to solve?
(FWIW, I like the @Malmesbury compromise.)
Trump chose Mehmet Oz, a doctor and former television host, to run Medicaid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rl8knmg8eo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2d1lj3nwqo
Surely you save your political capital for major taxation changes that raise tens of billions? It comes across as ideological as a result, that the government are at best ambivalent to farming and rural communities. I suspect there will a revival of the Countryside Alliance as there was under Bair’s government, but this time with some newly very famous farmers leading the protests.
It’s not the same when you only watch the rockets land in the water rather than back on terra firma. Amazing that bringing them back was thought impossible only a few years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze386d3enpo
Think it would have been nice of them to mention Coffeezilla (rather than just crib his homework), who has run in-depth stories about his for well over a year now and cost himself a huge amount in lawyers fees to stand up to the lawfare.
This Government is in real danger of falling between two stools: making changes that are just enough to irritate the wealthy whilst being wholly insufficient (and, in the case of the NI raid and the refusal to support local government, positively harmful) to the interests of the less well off. The obvious risk is that, on five years' time, we shall have seen modest improvements in the health service whilst living standards continue to decline and the rest of the public realm keeps on decaying and shutting down. The Government risks going to the country trying to get re-elected on the basis that granny now only has to wait one year rather than three for a hip replacement, only to find itself condemned for making most of the country poorer, against a backdrop of cratered roads, closed libraries and bankrupt councils that collect the bins once every two months and spend everything else on social care services that still fail because of the weight of demand.
The nation requires emergency surgery; what it's going to get is another box of Elastoplast. If this all ends with Drs Badenoch and Farage diagnosing gangrene and cutting off both legs and an arm a few years down the road then the lack of decisive action now will have been to blame.
Which it probably is.
Jag has been shafted by the current owners, never been great cars but at least had an image that worked for a clientele. To break into a new market they will need to be either really well made (hmmm) or cheap.
Sadly they weren’t sold to one of the German giants who would have made them well and got a decent range together.
His latest target: Youtube behemoth “MrBeast”, which might ruffle some feathers at Alphabet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dslLBsHkVzE
Privately owned businesses have an exemption because otherwise they typically have to be sold after one generation.
Farms are simply privately owned businesses and should be treated as such
There was a time they were competitive with BMWs, Mercedes and Audis, and I'd argue better.