@alexwickham NEW: Starmer declines to condemn these sentences when asked by @GeorgeWParker at Rio presser. Defends his aim to seek closer ties with China.
I was quite impressed with Badenoch's stirring speech about downtrodden workers and the nation's indebtedness for their labours
The miners strike might have turned out so differently if we'd had Kemi on board.
Kemi can also back the miners now too after Ed Miliband scrapped what would have been the last mine left in the UK in Cumbria
Thatcher closing hundreds of uneconomic mines in the dash for gas, was genius. Miliband closes an uneconomic mine and he's a traitor.
FWIW as the grandson of a miner they would both be right to have closed the lot of them.
He didn't scrap a mine, he refused permission for a new one that clearly would have been profitable (otherwise someone wouldn't have been desperate to build it) and met all the current bollocks that these projects have to meet.
He is a repellent toad who doesn't want the UK to succeed.
Hm - I know little about this, but why is the state approving businesses or otherwise depending on the state's view of whether the business will be viable?
For mines (and oil wells, etc.), I believe it's because there is a legal requirement to clean up the land when you're done extracting the resource.
It would be better achieved via a bond - but most people who want to build coal mines and oil wells don't want the capital commitment of having to put money aside for later cleanup.
Makes all Labour's squaking about "callous Tory bastards!!" seem rather hollow...
Interesting. It doesn't take into account the increased uptake of Pension Credit, which will do a lot to mitigate that figure. It's also relative poverty, which PBers tend to dismiss in other circumstances, and rounded to the nearest 50,000.
For context, removing the two-child limit would bring 540,000 children out of absolute poverty.
Rounded to the nearest 50k is a bizarre choice. In reality, the loss of WFA is much smaller than the pension rises these people will get via triple lock.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
The snow fell in Tallinn last night. Not the crunchy flakes of true winter, but the half-hearted slush of the in-between time. We mark 1000 days of war. 1000 days since the Estonian independence day when we wondered whether war was already upon us and whether we would be fighting for survival ourselves very soon.
True war has not come. In-between war, on the other hand definitely has. Attacks on pipelines and cables, jamming of GPS and civilian aircraft systems, removal of border markers, corruption and threats. Blood curdling threats. Threats of torture, of the utter destruction of the very name of Estonia. Yet in these 1000 days we have quietly prepared. We have an advanced civil defence system, we have quadrupled defence expenditure, we have found any Putinist fifth columnists and removed them. We have linked with the new NATO allies of Finland and Sweden. Today the Baltic has a strategic depth it has never had before. We have NATO troops and supplies of the latest military equipment. We are as secure as we can be against the depravity of Putin and the massive nervous breakdown he has visited on Russia. Large numbers of Russian speaking Estonians are amongst the first to volunteer to defend Estonia, since they know that, as in Ukraine, it will be the Russian speakers who will be first to be attacked by the rabble that used to be the Russian army.
For rabble it undoubtedly is. Despite the attacks on infrastructure, including mass cyber attacks- it is assumed here that today´s British Airways IT glitch is Russian cyber terrorism- the performance of the Russian military has been appalling. The Estonian high command doesn´t often comment, but the assumption is that we can hold until the Poles, Swedes, Finns, the French and the Brits can reinforce and shove the Russian forces out. The question is now that time for Putin is running out. The Russian economy, especially its transport sector is showing unmistakable signs of serious meltdown. Inflation is rising sharply and interest rates at 20% are still insufficient to protect the Rouble. The horrific death toll inflicted on Ukraine is more than matched by the astonishing losses of Russian forces. China is open to discussions with the West, since they see the increasingly desperate nuclear threats from Putin as very bad for business. The announcement of the G-20 meeting of Sir Kier Starmer and President and General Secretary Xi Jinping was greeted with wise nods here, despite the general hostility to China following some rather inept actions by Beijing against Estonia, not least the damage to the Finnish/Estonian power connectors.
No one knows what Trump will do. Estonia is closing no doors. In the face of what looks like a gathering crisis, we watch and wait. We live in the in-between time and hope that the death agonies of Putinism will not unleash a nuclear response before the monster is gone. Nevertheless is will be a cold and grim winter before the spring comes once more.
Your short vignettes are really well written; effective, and welcome. Thanks.
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
"processed"? You mean plucked or breasted. And that's not bad going if you want the legs as well.
Skinned. If you cut in the right place it is possible to take the whole skin off along with all the feathers and you are left with a whole bird with legs and wings attached to do with as you will. We breast pigeon as that is about all you can do with them. But the other birds we treat the same way as the pheasants. And nothing is wasted. Once the eating is done all the bones go for game stock which we use to make soups.
I'm just reading a document online that says: "The ignition of a 1-kg plutonium button requires heating 50-60 seconds with a welding torch. Spread of the burning reaction to cover the button may take 10-15 minutes with the temperature reaching over 800 "C."
Just in case anyone has a handy 1-kg Plutonium button lying around on their desk.
It's a little crazy to think that people have done experiments to see how plutonium burns and self-ignites in various forms and conditions.
The scientists on the Manhattan Project were not all as stupid at Slotin.
When they first created enough plutonium to play with, they undertook a full range of experiments to characterise its physical properties. Including flammability.
Which is why they discovered the phases of the metal. Delta phase suddenly contracts to Alpha phase under certain conditions. Which means that a non-critical mass of Delta can just decide to be critical.....
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
"Tubthumping" by Chumbawumba is probably Peak British Culture
Born Slippy.
Essentially the soundtrack to any decent night out between the mid 1990s and mid 2000s.
That's because British music went through an unaccountable dead phase from 1996 to about 2002. Born Slippy was a rare beacon of 'pretty good, actually'.
I'm struggling to think of any other highlights from that period. Dawn of the Replicants is about as good as it got for me.
Portishead Portishead?
David Gray White Ladder?
Yes, there was the odd beacon. David Gray didn't really land with me, but I'll certainly grant you Portishead. Odd how bleak and full of existential dread many of the albums of that time were. I'd add Becoming X by Sneaker Pimps and Play by Moby into that category. Odd when there has probably never been a less existentially dreadful period than the late 90s.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
"processed"? You mean plucked or breasted. And that's not bad going if you want the legs as well.
Skinned. If you cut in the right place it is possible to take the whole skin off along with all the feathers and you are left with a whole bird with legs and wings attached to do with as you will. We breast pigeon as that is about all you can do with them. But the other birds we treat the same way as the pheasants. And nothing is wasted. Once the eating is done all the bones go for game stock which we use to make soups.
I love game birds but it’s bloody hard to find them in London butchers. Even out in Kent you have to know where to look. Yet millions of them are shot every year, and they’re cheap. Need better distribution.
For me eating pheasant this season would be revenge. The bastards hang around my vineyard and they ate every single Pinot Noir bunch this year. 1,500 PN vines, so probably at least 5,000 bunches, and the wankers scoffed every single one. They had started moving on to the other varieties by the time harvest came.
I expect they would have tasted delicious, and fruity in a Burgundian sort of way. But even the local farm shop doesn’t sell the fuckers.
"Tubthumping" by Chumbawumba is probably Peak British Culture
Born Slippy.
Essentially the soundtrack to any decent night out between the mid 1990s and mid 2000s.
That's because British music went through an unaccountable dead phase from 1996 to about 2002. Born Slippy was a rare beacon of 'pretty good, actually'.
I'm struggling to think of any other highlights from that period. Dawn of the Replicants is about as good as it got for me.
Portishead Portishead?
David Gray White Ladder?
Yes, there was the odd beacon. David Gray didn't really land with me, but I'll certainly grant you Portishead. Odd how bleak and full of existential dread many of the albums of that time were. I'd add Becoming X by Sneaker Pimps and Play by Moby into that category. Odd when there has probably never been a less existentially dreadful period than the late 90s.
Some pretty existentially dreadful vernacular architecture around then, to be fair.
I'm just reading a document online that says: "The ignition of a 1-kg plutonium button requires heating 50-60 seconds with a welding torch. Spread of the burning reaction to cover the button may take 10-15 minutes with the temperature reaching over 800 "C."
Just in case anyone has a handy 1-kg Plutonium button lying around on their desk.
It's a little crazy to think that people have done experiments to see how plutonium burns and self-ignites in various forms and conditions.
The scientists on the Manhattan Project were not all as stupid at Slotin.
When they first created enough plutonium to play with, they undertook a full range of experiments to characterise its physical properties. Including flammability.
Which is why they discovered the phases of the metal. Delta phase suddenly contracts to Alpha phase under certain conditions. Which means that a non-critical mass of Delta can just decide to be critical.....
They may not have been stupid. But there were accidents.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
OK, that's a plausible mechanism... But is it the relevant mechanism? There are lots of family businesses that are pretty bad at providing whatever they provide, because they are badly undercapitalised and nobody can lift their heads from the day-to-day to think "is this the best way of doing things?" So corner shops have been overtaken by mini chain supermarkets and one-off cafes struggle against Costa et al. Because tiny businesses with no margin for error have a greater need to chase short term profit (to survive) than bigger organisations.
The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h That means Kemi Badenoch is committed to going into the next election with her two priorities being a tax cut for farmers with proprieties worth over £3 million, and a tax cut for parents of private school children. I'm not sure that's where the Tories need to be.
Except of course it isn't properties alone. Much of the asset value of a farm is the machinery, equipment and, in the case of non-arable farming, the livestock. So for example a milking heifer is worth around £2,500 and the average UK herd size is around 150 head. So for a single milking herd that is £375,000.
'An additional 50,000 pensioners will be living in relative poverty next year as a result of cuts to the winter fuel allowance, the government's own estimates have revealed.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80l9lde5yjo
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
Unfortunately THE theme of the times is privileged, prosperous amoral chancers persuading the folk at the bottom that somehow they’re on their side. Clarkson (Repton) and Lloyd Webber (Westminster) aren’t a bad fit for that model. *tugs forelock and taps side of nose at the same time* Look, they’re rich, smart guys, they must know what they’re talking abaht.
When I was doing aa triathlon at Oundle School earlier in the year, someone in the registration queue commented on the rather majestic aircraft hanger-like sports hall. "Better than my old school," I said. "Where did you go?" he asked. "I went to school in Repton. "Oh", he said, "a posho." "No," I replied. "I went to school in Repton, not at Repton. I was at primary school there."
What happened next?
He laughed. And then I got changed and swum 600 metres in their rather excellent 50-metre pool, cycled 25km, and ran 5km around their playing fields. Which annoyingly were not as flat as I hoped.
(Indoor 50-metre pools are quite unusual in the UK; most are 25 metre. I was quite looking forward to swimming in it, but the boom had broken down halfway across, so we ended up swimming in one half of the pool, climbing out, then getting into the other half to continue the swim.)
Until recently Bath Uni had a very rare 49.96 m pool. Long story, short version - they built a pool that was exactly 50 m long and forgot about the tiles...
Until recently? They no longer have a ~50m pool or they fixed the 49.96m pool to be 50m?
They replaced it with the olympic warm up pool from London.
I was quite impressed with Badenoch's stirring speech about downtrodden workers and the nation's indebtedness for their labours
The miners strike might have turned out so differently if we'd had Kemi on board.
Kemi can also back the miners now too after Ed Miliband scrapped what would have been the last mine left in the UK in Cumbria
Thatcher closing hundreds of uneconomic mines in the dash for gas, was genius. Miliband closes an uneconomic mine and he's a traitor.
FWIW as the grandson of a miner they would both be right to have closed the lot of them.
He didn't scrap a mine, he refused permission for a new one that clearly would have been profitable (otherwise someone wouldn't have been desperate to build it) and met all the current bollocks that these projects have to meet.
He is a repellent toad who doesn't want the UK to succeed.
Hm - I know little about this, but why is the state approving businesses or otherwise depending on the state's view of whether the business will be viable?
Reading the document, the answer appears to be "because it doesn't want to approve sketchy operations that will mine coal for a few years and then conveniently go bankrupt, leaving the state stuck with the bill for dealing with any subsidence, cleaning up and making safe the abandoned mine".
Michael Clarke on Sky being pretty enthusiastic explaining how both Russian and American inter-continental weapons will only take 20 minutes to hit their intended targets...🧐🤔
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
Don't worry, @Cicero said everyone in Estonia looked on pleased when Starmer started the sellout of UK interests to China. I'm sure if it was Boris he'd have said the Estonians were apoplectic with rage that Boris had allied with Russia's partner in crime and weapons supplier.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
All this would sound more convincing if the previous 14 years of Conservative-led Government had taken any serious measures to improve our food security.
We were self sufficient to about 60% of all food and about 75% of indigenous food so how would we get to 100% self sufficiency? When we last did it (during WW2) we turned large areas over to food cultivation so instead of using green field sites for residential development, perhaps we should convert them to agricultural use - perhaps as tenanted smallholdings (as happened after WW1)?
Alternatively, we could sequester land such as golf clubs or racecourses and turn that land over to food production but I'll leave you to suggest that for the next Conservative Manifesto.
I'm just reading a document online that says: "The ignition of a 1-kg plutonium button requires heating 50-60 seconds with a welding torch. Spread of the burning reaction to cover the button may take 10-15 minutes with the temperature reaching over 800 "C."
Just in case anyone has a handy 1-kg Plutonium button lying around on their desk.
It's a little crazy to think that people have done experiments to see how plutonium burns and self-ignites in various forms and conditions.
The scientists on the Manhattan Project were not all as stupid at Slotin.
When they first created enough plutonium to play with, they undertook a full range of experiments to characterise its physical properties. Including flammability.
Which is why they discovered the phases of the metal. Delta phase suddenly contracts to Alpha phase under certain conditions. Which means that a non-critical mass of Delta can just decide to be critical.....
Yes, it has some of the weirdest phase transitions of any element.
I'm just reading a document online that says: "The ignition of a 1-kg plutonium button requires heating 50-60 seconds with a welding torch. Spread of the burning reaction to cover the button may take 10-15 minutes with the temperature reaching over 800 "C."
Just in case anyone has a handy 1-kg Plutonium button lying around on their desk.
It's a little crazy to think that people have done experiments to see how plutonium burns and self-ignites in various forms and conditions.
The scientists on the Manhattan Project were not all as stupid at Slotin.
When they first created enough plutonium to play with, they undertook a full range of experiments to characterise its physical properties. Including flammability.
Which is why they discovered the phases of the metal. Delta phase suddenly contracts to Alpha phase under certain conditions. Which means that a non-critical mass of Delta can just decide to be critical.....
Yes, it has some of the weirdest phase transitions of any element.
And still not resolved. At the end of the Cold War, it turned out Russian scientists weren’t as convinced by gallium phase stabilisation as US scientists were. Research still continues
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
There’s that. OTOH, you could say much the same about Reeves’ IHT policy.
I’d agree - particularly post Brexit - that we need to take a hard look at our farming policy. But this is action before thought.
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
As far as I can see, the large business-owned farms are rather more economically important than small family-owned farms:
That compares with Very Small (41%) and Small (30%) farms which, combined, produce only 13% of the total output using 28% of the land.
I get that there is more to life than economics, and that heritage and tradition are valuable too. But this does suggest that total UK agricultural output is unlikely to be as negatively affected as some have been claiming if, say, a quarter of the most marginal farms decide to sell up.
Michael Clarke on Sky being pretty enthusiastic explaining how both Russian and American inter-continental weapons will only take 20 minutes to hit their intended targets...🧐🤔
The British Pathe YouTube channel has a pair of oddly chipper reports about RAF Fylingdale that they produced in the first half of the 60s. The old four minute warning gets a mention.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
All this would sound more convincing if the previous 14 years of Conservative-led Government had taken any serious measures to improve our food security.
We were self sufficient to about 60% of all food and about 75% of indigenous food so how would we get to 100% self sufficiency? When we last did it (during WW2) we turned large areas over to food cultivation so instead of using green field sites for residential development, perhaps we should convert them to agricultural use - perhaps as tenanted smallholdings (as happened after WW1)?
Alternatively, we could sequester land such as golf clubs or racecourses and turn that land over to food production but I'll leave you to suggest that for the next Conservative Manifesto.
There is a really stupid argument which we see repeated again and again. It says that because we are not 100% self sufficient in food there is no point trying to improve that percentage a bit.
Just because we are not 100% self sufficient in food (actually a bleak prospect considering the things we import which don't grow here) that is no reason to want to reduce how much food we produce. That will simply make things worse. It makes us more reliant on imports which undermines our own farmers and which makes us vulnerable to the sorts of shocks we ghave seen in the last 5 years with covid etc.
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h That means Kemi Badenoch is committed to going into the next election with her two priorities being a tax cut for farmers with proprieties worth over £3 million, and a tax cut for parents of private school children. I'm not sure that's where the Tories need to be.
Except of course it isn't properties alone. Much of the asset value of a farm is the machinery, equipment and, in the case of non-arable farming, the livestock. So for example a milking heifer is worth around £2,500 and the average UK herd size is around 150 head. So for a single milking herd that is £375,000.
Not knowing UK tax laws but could the machinery and livestock not be owned by separate companies and “hired” to the farm so that all the constituent parts are separate legally and reduce the value of the estate down to the land and buildings?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h That means Kemi Badenoch is committed to going into the next election with her two priorities being a tax cut for farmers with proprieties worth over £3 million, and a tax cut for parents of private school children. I'm not sure that's where the Tories need to be.
Except of course it isn't properties alone. Much of the asset value of a farm is the machinery, equipment and, in the case of non-arable farming, the livestock. So for example a milking heifer is worth around £2,500 and the average UK herd size is around 150 head. So for a single milking herd that is £375,000.
Not knowing UK tax laws but could the machinery and livestock not be owned by separate companies and “hired” to the farm so that all the constituent parts are separate legally and reduce the value of the estate down to the land and buildings?
Given the low margins involved I suspect the costs of such an arrangment simply wouldn't be viable for your average famer. Of course some farmers do actually hire in their equipment as they can't afford the original capital outlay and banks are notoriously sceptical about lending to farmers. But it is a considerably more expensive way to operate.
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.
Which bit is bollocks? The numbers seem plausible enough and are taken from recent historical data, rather than hypotheticals.
I have an idea fir a compromise. Farmers can designate their land as Public Interest Land. If they do that land is exempt from IHT completely. But there is a catch. If they obtain planning permussion for any land they pay extra tax when they sell it. And they have to agree to not plough up SSSIs, block public footpaths, rip out hedgerows etc.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
As far as I can see, the large business-owned farms are rather more economically important than small family-owned farms:
That compares with Very Small (41%) and Small (30%) farms which, combined, produce only 13% of the total output using 28% of the land.
I get that there is more to life than economics, and that heritage and tradition are valuable too. But this does suggest that total UK agricultural output is unlikely to be as negatively affected as some have been claiming if, say, a quarter of the most marginal farms decide to sell up.
Even economically large farms are largely family owned
I have an idea fir a compromise. Farmers can designate their land as Public Interest Land. If they do that land is exempt from IHT completely. But there is a catch. If they obtain planning permussion for any land they pay extra tax when they sell it. And they have to agree to not plough up SSSIs, block public footpaths, rip out hedgerows etc.
Except for the tax issue, all of that is the law now anyway. If you plough up an SSSI or rip out a hedgerow you can get an unlimited fine. If you end up in Crown Court for blocking a footpath then the fine is £5000 and £250 a day for every day you fail to unblock it.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
OK, that's a plausible mechanism... But is it the relevant mechanism? There are lots of family businesses that are pretty bad at providing whatever they provide, because they are badly undercapitalised and nobody can lift their heads from the day-to-day to think "is this the best way of doing things?" So corner shops have been overtaken by mini chain supermarkets and one-off cafes struggle against Costa et al. Because tiny businesses with no margin for error have a greater need to chase short term profit (to survive) than bigger organisations.
The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?
Plenty of supermarkets themselves started off as family businesses eg Tesco and M and S. There are also more one off cafes still than the likes of Costa.
On your final paragraph of course the global electoral war against free market globalist liberalism and swing to protectionism and tighter border controls has only just begun
Interesting argument by the government that farmers want to benefit from good public services but let others pay for them.
At last they're getting their PR sorted out.
Except if you live in the country you would know we have never had good public services and probably never will. Paying high taxes to improve the public services of those living in cities is really not going to be a winning argument.
The interesting thing here is how much they seem to relish a fight with the farmers.
It's as if they believe their own propaganda about them being well-heeled landowning toffs.
See also fox hunting, VAT on private schools etc. It’s a religion for them.
Fox hunting... heh, we were discussing earlier the proclivity of oppositions to fail to reverse things they opposed in opposition once they get into government.
Although of course fox hunting still goes on all the time, its just its be 'accident' now rather than design.
We have a weird view of the natural world. I'd swear that some soft headed townies think that old wild animals end up in a care home or something to live out their days, rather than the real demise (disease, or ripped apart by a predator of some description).
We see the odd consequences of certain cuddly beasts being in favour. Who doesn't love a badger, with its lovely stripes etc. I'll tell you who - hedgehogs and anyone who wonders what became of the hedgehogs they used to see. Cuddly badger will quite happily feast on raw hedgehog, thanks very much.
The natural landscape we see is actually incredibly artificial. We cleared the great boreal forests in the UK before the Romans turned up. Britain would have been mainly covered in trees, an ancient Mirkwood. We've imported animals that weren't here (grey squirrels and rabbits) and got rid of ones that were (wolves, giant elk, beavers).
Ultimately things need balance. I'm not suggesting fox hunting is the only way to go, but is it worse than heading of to the halal slaughterhouse?
On hedgehogs:
We saw our first hedgehog in the garden on my son's birthday this summer (he didn't believe my claim that I had arranged it...). We have been in the house twelve years. My neighbour recently put up a security camera, and he has seen many hedgehogs scurry between his garden and ours.
Sometimes wildlife is more common than we imagine. Especially deer...
Deer are reaching plague proportions near use. Two were in our garden a month back (ok we live by fields, but even so). I looked out of the window and thought it was dog in the garden, then looked again.
Friend of a friend is licenced to hunt on the Longleat estate and sell the meat. Its bloody great.
And vegan, of course.
There’s an absolute shed tonne of venison to be had near us, if we only shot more of it. and yet you can only really buy it in farm and speciality shops. The Government and supermarkets should push it more.
It’s the season for game, to which I’m partial.
Had 9 brace of pheasant dropped off on Saturday evening. All processed and in the freezer (or in us) by Sunday lunchtime.
"processed"? You mean plucked or breasted. And that's not bad going if you want the legs as well.
Skinned. If you cut in the right place it is possible to take the whole skin off along with all the feathers and you are left with a whole bird with legs and wings attached to do with as you will. We breast pigeon as that is about all you can do with them. But the other birds we treat the same way as the pheasants. And nothing is wasted. Once the eating is done all the bones go for game stock which we use to make soups.
Excellent. I am going to try this on Saturday.
I've seen people put their feet on the wings and pull but I favour a more skilled approach.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
All this would sound more convincing if the previous 14 years of Conservative-led Government had taken any serious measures to improve our food security.
We were self sufficient to about 60% of all food and about 75% of indigenous food so how would we get to 100% self sufficiency? When we last did it (during WW2) we turned large areas over to food cultivation so instead of using green field sites for residential development, perhaps we should convert them to agricultural use - perhaps as tenanted smallholdings (as happened after WW1)?
Alternatively, we could sequester land such as golf clubs or racecourses and turn that land over to food production but I'll leave you to suggest that for the next Conservative Manifesto.
The post-WW1 situation echoes strongly - with a background of protection, high land values relative to farm incomes, and the doubling of death duties.
What happened then was that county councils bought land and rented it to new smallholders, together with a programme of agricultural education, improved veterinary services, etc. As far as I'm aware, it was far from successful - with most of the smallholdings being unprofitable, many being bankrupted, and the "return to the land" quickly became a return to poverty instead.
If there's anything to be learned from that experience, I suspect that it's that concentrating our efforts on the smallest producers does little to help decrease our reliance on imports.
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
Don't worry, @Cicero said everyone in Estonia looked on pleased when Starmer started the sellout of UK interests to China. I'm sure if it was Boris he'd have said the Estonians were apoplectic with rage that Boris had allied with Russia's partner in crime and weapons supplier.
I love Cicero as one of PB's rich tapestry of eccentrics, but I must confess when I begin one of his lugubrious broadcasts from the frontline (of Estonia), I get the overpowering urge to scroll.
What do we suppose the CIA’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange is?
They advised Biden it was 50% in autumn 2022. What is it now? A paltry 30%?
Interesting the view on BA outage from the Baltics. That was my first reaction too, it also happened the first weekend of the war.
Equinor’s Johann Sverdrop offshore field in Norway lost power yesterday too. “Overheating of a ground based transformer”, the company advised Reuters they did not believe it to be sabotage. Perhaps I am overly suspicious but perhaps it was a warning against Ukraine using US missiles against Russian crude infrastructure.
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
Don't worry, @Cicero said everyone in Estonia looked on pleased when Starmer started the sellout of UK interests to China. I'm sure if it was Boris he'd have said the Estonians were apoplectic with rage that Boris had allied with Russia's partner in crime and weapons supplier.
I love Cicero as one of PB's rich tapestry of eccentrics, but I must confess when I begin one of his lugubrious broadcasts from the frontline (of Estonia), I get the overpowering urge to scroll.
It's also an amazing coincidence that all of Estonia seems to agree with Lib Dem/Labour policy and loathe Tory policies. Things that just seem to naturally align, apparently.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
"put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better "
That's what the right wingers and the Brexiterts have been demanding since I can remember!
Bonfire of regulations, leave the EU and have free trade with the US, etc.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
OK, that's a plausible mechanism... But is it the relevant mechanism? There are lots of family businesses that are pretty bad at providing whatever they provide, because they are badly undercapitalised and nobody can lift their heads from the day-to-day to think "is this the best way of doing things?" So corner shops have been overtaken by mini chain supermarkets and one-off cafes struggle against Costa et al. Because tiny businesses with no margin for error have a greater need to chase short term profit (to survive) than bigger organisations.
The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?
Plenty of supermarkets themselves started off as family businesses eg Tesco and M and S. There are also more one off cafes still than the likes of Costa.
On your final paragraph of course the global electoral war against free market globalist liberalism and swing to protectionism and tighter border controls has only just begun
I get so confused.
I was convinced you Tories were the free marketeering globalists.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.
Which bit is bollocks? The numbers seem plausible enough and are taken from recent historical data, rather than hypotheticals.
Dan’s analysis on most topics in the last year or so has been pretty objective and usually technically spot on. He also makes use of a large range of tax specialists who prefer to keep out of the limelight when he’s commenting on areas he’s not an expert in. He has both publicly rubbished various allegations of tax avoidance or evasion against Tory MPs, and been extremely critical of the NI changes, so the evidence he’s just spouting Labour propaganda is pretty thin.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
And Donald Trump is the shield that will protect us against those beastly corporate interests, is that right?
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
And Donald Trump is the shield that will protect us against those beastly corporate interests, is that right?
The doublethink is strong on here this evening.
To the extent that corporate interests are not aligned with national interests, yes.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
It is quite something to behold.
Corporate interests are good vehicles for erasing complex and historic social tapestries.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
Farmers are like all other economic actors: they respond to incentives.
In the UK, there are excellent labelling requirements, that mean that consumers can choose higher quality food.
In the US, there are very few labelling requirements*.
So, in the US you profit maximize by selling shit. In the UK, you profit maximize by selling better quality produce.
That's nothing to do with the ownership structure.
* Indeed, Monsanto has got laws struck down that required food to disclose whether it contained GMO crops
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
At times, the food retail sector has ridden the farmers very hard. I am not saying the balance has been perfect, but it's been hella good.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
Except a lot of the criticism I’ve seen from farmers about APR has been sneering that the land will be bought by “small time hobbyists who don’t know how to farm”.
And they have a point there. I’m sure my small vineyard is managed much less efficiently than the big boys over the hill. But they can’t play both sides, unless they’re saying there’s a Goldilocks farm size that’s bigger than the small time hobbyists who don’t know how to farm but smaller than Monsanto.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
I suppose it makes sense for a Government that is almost completely urban based to not care if the British countryside changes irrevocably. Just take a look at Germany if you want an insight into the future if this govt has its way.
'An additional 50,000 pensioners will be living in relative poverty next year as a result of cuts to the winter fuel allowance, the government's own estimates have revealed.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80l9lde5yjo
If you move money from one group to another, you will move some out of relative poverty and some into it. That's what 'relative' means. 50,000 seems quite a low number of pensioners given the overall population of pensioners - presumably because this is the richest demographic by age. Honestly HYUFD, WFO was a cynical Gordon Brown wheeze. Why are you supporting it?
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
All this would sound more convincing if the previous 14 years of Conservative-led Government had taken any serious measures to improve our food security.
We were self sufficient to about 60% of all food and about 75% of indigenous food so how would we get to 100% self sufficiency? When we last did it (during WW2) we turned large areas over to food cultivation so instead of using green field sites for residential development, perhaps we should convert them to agricultural use - perhaps as tenanted smallholdings (as happened after WW1)?
Alternatively, we could sequester land such as golf clubs or racecourses and turn that land over to food production but I'll leave you to suggest that for the next Conservative Manifesto.
The post-WW1 situation echoes strongly - with a background of protection, high land values relative to farm incomes, and the doubling of death duties.
What happened then was that county councils bought land and rented it to new smallholders, together with a programme of agricultural education, improved veterinary services, etc. As far as I'm aware, it was far from successful - with most of the smallholdings being unprofitable, many being bankrupted, and the "return to the land" quickly became a return to poverty instead.
If there's anything to be learned from that experience, I suspect that it's that concentrating our efforts on the smallest producers does little to help decrease our reliance on imports.
The Smallholdings were meant to be for military veterans to start a new life.
They still exist in some areas and are often horticultural businesses or specialist agri-businesses. The land is in the green belt so can't be developed. For the County Councils, the cost of managing these (either themselves or via a third party) often outweighs any income generated so they seek to merge the small holdings into small farms and try to make them profitable.
I suppose it makes sense for a Government that is almost completely urban based to not care if the British countryside changes irrevocably. Just take a look at Germany if you want an insight into the future if this govt has its way.
Though even Germany at federal and state level protects and subsidises its farmers better than this one, plenty of prosperous family farms in Bavaria
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
Well at the moment this useless government is proposing to destroy farmers incomes and assets and freeze lots of pensioners to death in winter so is prioritising neither!
I have an idea fir a compromise. Farmers can designate their land as Public Interest Land. If they do that land is exempt from IHT completely. But there is a catch. If they obtain planning permussion for any land they pay extra tax when they sell it. And they have to agree to not plough up SSSIs, block public footpaths, rip out hedgerows etc.
Except for the tax issue, all of that is the law now anyway. If you plough up an SSSI or rip out a hedgerow you can get an unlimited fine. If you end up in Crown Court for blocking a footpath then the fine is £5000 and £250 a day for every day you fail to unblock it.
Yes you are right but the laws are regularly ignored. And I have seen so much habitat destruction in my lifetime it makes me weep. Some legal and some illegal. I don't know exactly how it might work but there could be room for a compromise here.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
The left is all about corporate interests now here and in the US.
The liberal centre left yes, the likes of Melenchon, Sanders and Corbyn less so.
Indeed even Corbyn was more pro farmer and small businesses and more willing to tax big corporates than Starmer and Reeves are who seem to want to hammer the former above all. Reeves actually froze corporation tax
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.
Which bit is bollocks? The numbers seem plausible enough and are taken from recent historical data, rather than hypotheticals.
Dan’s analysis on most topics in the last year or so has been pretty objective and usually technically spot on. He also makes use of a large range of tax specialists who prefer to keep out of the limelight when he’s commenting on areas he’s not an expert in. He has both publicly rubbished various allegations of tax avoidance or evasion against Tory MPs, and been extremely critical of the NI changes, so the evidence he’s just spouting Labour propaganda is pretty thin.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
Well at the moment this useless government is proposing to destroy farmers incomes and assets and freeze lots of pensioners to death in winter so is prioritising neither!
How does changing IHT have even the slightest impact on farmers' incomes?
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
Yes because they are actually interested in conserving the land, preserving it for future generations and providing food for the nation even in time of war. Not making short term profits then buggering off elsewhere when there is no more profit to be had.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
OK, that's a plausible mechanism... But is it the relevant mechanism? There are lots of family businesses that are pretty bad at providing whatever they provide, because they are badly undercapitalised and nobody can lift their heads from the day-to-day to think "is this the best way of doing things?" So corner shops have been overtaken by mini chain supermarkets and one-off cafes struggle against Costa et al. Because tiny businesses with no margin for error have a greater need to chase short term profit (to survive) than bigger organisations.
The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?
Plenty of supermarkets themselves started off as family businesses eg Tesco and M and S. There are also more one off cafes still than the likes of Costa.
On your final paragraph of course the global electoral war against free market globalist liberalism and swing to protectionism and tighter border controls has only just begun
I get so confused.
I was convinced you Tories were the free marketeering globalists.
Must be my mistake, I'm sure.
We aren't, the Tories were originally the party of the landed gentry when the Whigs were the free marketeering merchants.
Post Brexit arguably Starmer Labour and the LDs are more free marketeering globalists than the Tories and Reform certainly aren't (though even the LDs oppose the tractor tax)
My views on the APR issue pretty much echo Rita de la Feria’s:
Two things can be simultaneously true: 1. Abolishing IHT exemptions for farms, or VAT exemptions for private schools fees, are good measures from a tax policy perspective. 2. Concentrating solely on abolishing these concessions is strategically unwise from a political economy perspective.
Base broadening tax measures, such as these, are technically sound and increase both the efficiency and the equity of the tax system. But opposition will be strong, and they yield relatively limited returns. A lot of political capital will be spent, and the opportunity cost is large.
The UK tax system needs proper reform. There is no tax policy expert who will say otherwise. Tinkering at the edges won't do it. If the time is all spent fighting small battles, there will be nothing left for a big one.
That’s the problem for Labour. Unless it’s deliberate for reasons I’ve not yet gleaned, it risks being like several recent UK policies - a big distraction.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
Well at the moment this useless government is proposing to destroy farmers incomes and assets and freeze lots of pensioners to death in winter so is prioritising neither!
How does changing IHT have even the slightest impact on farmers' incomes?
It destroys the value of their investments as well as losing much of the family farm on the farmers death
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
You’re taking a very purist, free market view. Which is fine, so long as you are consistent.
Many of us who have grown up in the country would take the view that it is possible (and desirable) for Government action to ensure both that farmers earn a decent wage, and that food prices are sensible, by putting a thumb on the scales.
The reason for doing that is to ensure we retain a range of domestic produce (partly for food security and partly for reasons of tradition and heritage) and that we retain a countryside which is deliberately less efficient than it might be in order to make it more pleasant.
We don’t do naked free markets in this country, we do well regulated ones often beaten into the shape we want. It’s less efficient, but it makes it a nicer place to live.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
Absolutely. As I said in my post so we are in violent agreement.
Farmers are often hammered on price but keep on buggering on. They aren't in that sense acting as homus economicus.
How will Monsanto respond to the same pressures I wonder.
UPDATE 4 November: The unit on a measure of area was corrected from hectares to acres. A sentence was added detailing the residence nil-rate band rate of inheritance tax.
Dan Neidle’s going for it on APR. I suspect his TwiX follower count is taking a hit.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
Neidle is talking bollocks - and of course doing so on behalf of the Labour Party as he sits on their National Constitutional Committee. The idea he is some sort of independent expert is garbage.
Which bit is bollocks? The numbers seem plausible enough and are taken from recent historical data, rather than hypotheticals.
Dan’s analysis on most topics in the last year or so has been pretty objective and usually technically spot on. He also makes use of a large range of tax specialists who prefer to keep out of the limelight when he’s commenting on areas he’s not an expert in. He has both publicly rubbished various allegations of tax avoidance or evasion against Tory MPs, and been extremely critical of the NI changes, so the evidence he’s just spouting Labour propaganda is pretty thin.
Yep, Tyndall is being an arse.
If that is the sum total of your contribution to this debate then probably best if you just admit it and fuck off now.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
Well at the moment this useless government is proposing to destroy farmers incomes and assets and freeze lots of pensioners to death in winter so is prioritising neither!
How does changing IHT have even the slightest impact on farmers' incomes?
You could argue that funding IHT impacts the income of the inheritors, if the owner didn’t lifetime gift it.
The end of the single farm payment had a big impact. The biggest impacts on incomes are commodity prices and input prices, particularly labour and chemicals. I’ve certainly felt the increase in the latter this last 2 years.
'An additional 50,000 pensioners will be living in relative poverty next year as a result of cuts to the winter fuel allowance, the government's own estimates have revealed.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80l9lde5yjo
If you move money from one group to another, you will move some out of relative poverty and some into it. That's what 'relative' means. 50,000 seems quite a low number of pensioners given the overall population of pensioners - presumably because this is the richest demographic by age. Honestly HYUFD, WFO was a cynical Gordon Brown wheeze. Why are you supporting it?
Easy. The Conservatives are now in opposition.
Reflexively opposing everything the government proposes is their job in the Westminster system.
The "we will support the government when it gets things right" is boilerplate cant, except for real national crisis.
My views on the APR issue pretty much echo Rita de la Feria’s:
Two things can be simultaneously true: 1. Abolishing IHT exemptions for farms, or VAT exemptions for private schools fees, are good measures from a tax policy perspective. 2. Concentrating solely on abolishing these concessions is strategically unwise from a political economy perspective.
Base broadening tax measures, such as these, are technically sound and increase both the efficiency and the equity of the tax system. But opposition will be strong, and they yield relatively limited returns. A lot of political capital will be spent, and the opportunity cost is large.
The UK tax system needs proper reform. There is no tax policy expert who will say otherwise. Tinkering at the edges won't do it. If the time is all spent fighting small battles, there will be nothing left for a big one.
That’s the problem for Labour. Unless it’s deliberate for reasons I’ve not yet gleaned, it risks being like several recent UK policies - a big distraction.
I'm struggling to think of many government policies in recent memory that are not tinkering. Brexit I suppose, but with a million pressing issues and limited political capital there's not much appetite for big reforms, and when we do get it it's probably ideologically driven and done poorly.
Next up, after Jeremy “I bought my farm in order to avoid inheritance tax“ Clarkson; that well known farmer Andrew Lloyd Webber, who definitely hasn’t bought 5,000 acres in order to avoid inheritance tax: https://x.com/Otto_English/status/1858860636609876027
Really not sure leading with these guys is doing the farming lobby any favours with the wider public? But maybe that’s just my left-liberal bubble speaking.
I'm not remotely left-liberal, but I don't get the sentimental drivel people spout about farming, any more than I did about coal mines in the 90s. Like any other marginal industry, if farmers can't survive without their epic tax breaks and subsidies they should go under, to allow the labour, land and capital to be used more efficiently by others. And small farms that benefit from the IHT break are exactly the least efficient ones that should go under first. Property doesn't suddenly become a national treasure because you plant crops or whatever on it. The world isn't short of food.
Having lower IHT is a good idea, but we should lower the overall rate rather than give out undeserved bungs to special interest groups, many of whom just use it as a tax dodge anyway.
Ultra libertarian fanaticism with no concern for the national interest.
We should have kept some coal mines as we need to secure our own energy in the age of Putin and lockdowns and renewables and nuclear alone are nowhere near enough as yet to supply it all.
We need to grow more of our own food even more so and the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land
Congratulations.
That is literally the most evidence free post I have ever seen on PB. And I've read @Leon's posts about AI.
Nothing evidence free about it, as I said we need to secure our own energy and our own food.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
"the best way to provide food for the nation is family farms rooted in the land"
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
I think it's the best way to provide good quality food. I look at American produce quality and shudder.
And American food isn't even cheap now....
It was never as cheap as ours. Farms, combined with the highly competitive food retail sector have given us the best food for the money in the developed world - second to France I'd say, but nobody else. Saying how broken it all is and how we should put two fingers up to Farmer Giles and get Monsanto in to do it better is peak left wing hypocritical tribe.
Farmers have always had a rough deal from governments. Remember the campaigns over the milk price.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
That's because there are 70 million people that consume food, and a few hundred thousand that produce it. And given that - especially for the poorest - their food costs are an enormous chunk of their income, then it would be politically brave to prioritize farmers' incomes over pensioners dinners.
You’re taking a very purist, free market view. Which is fine, so long as you are consistent.
Many of us who have grown up in the country would take the view that it is possible (and desirable) for Government action to ensure both that farmers earn a decent wage, and that food prices are sensible, by putting a thumb on the scales.
The reason for doing that is to ensure we retain a range of domestic produce (partly for food security and partly for reasons of tradition and heritage) and that we retain a countryside which is deliberately less efficient than it might be in order to make it more pleasant.
We don’t do naked free markets in this country, we do well regulated ones often beaten into the shape we want. It’s less efficient, but it makes it a nicer place to live.
I think there’s a lot of talking at cross purposes here. There are plenty of arguments for preserving and supporting family farms, and in any case most of our land isn’t suitable for large scale agribusiness - we’re not the plaine de champagne or the Ukrainian chernozems.
Whether a 100% IHT exemption that has been used increasingly as a tax planning tool by wealthy investors and funds is the right solution to the problem of supporting domestic farming I am pretty sceptical, unlike my Lib Dem parliamentary party it seems.
As I and many others have said, a 10 or 15 year grandfathering provision would have taken all the sting out of this politically and removed any threat to multi generational family concerns.
Wonderful interview of Jeremy Clarkson by Victoria Derbyshire. It'll be a while before the farmers allow him to represent them in an interview.
VB is a surprisingly good interviewer. Fearless and well informed. One of BBC's best now.
It was always said in a less enlightened time that she only had a face for radio. A great pity because TV missed out on quite a talent
LOL!!! You think he suffered from that interview? You have no sense of how most people perceive him do you?
You couldn't possibly have seen the interview if that's what you say happened. He just kept bashing the BBC until she asked him what could be done about people like him who bought land to avoid tax. He spluttered and said "'Typical BBC! Where did you get that nonsense from?"'. "From an interview which you gave to the Sunday Times in 2021" at which point he attempted to rally the audience back onside but simply ended up looking not only ridiculous but a liar to boot
Comments
@alexwickham
NEW: Starmer declines to condemn these sentences when asked by @GeorgeWParker at Rio presser. Defends his aim to seek closer ties with China.
It would be better achieved via a bond - but most people who want to build coal mines and oil wells don't want the capital commitment of having to put money aside for later cleanup.
It is no wonder free market globalist liberals like you are losing elections all over the world at the moment. As you are so focused on being citizens of nowhere, living anywhere as long as it is expensive and working for global corporations and organisations you have forgotten the interests of the nation you were born and raised in and its people
When they first created enough plutonium to play with, they undertook a full range of experiments to characterise its physical properties. Including flammability.
Which is why they discovered the phases of the metal. Delta phase suddenly contracts to Alpha phase under certain conditions. Which means that a non-critical mass of Delta can just decide to be critical.....
Is it? Does that actually produce more food? I mean, it might do. But it's a bald assertion made without the tiniest scintilla of actual evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_–_Women's_1500_metres#Finals
Odd how bleak and full of existential dread many of the albums of that time were. I'd add Becoming X by Sneaker Pimps and Play by Moby into that category. Odd when there has probably never been a less existentially dreadful period than the late 90s.
As I said, the current backlash against free market global liberalism in ballot boxes across the world is in part a reaction to its followers core beliefs such as that post from you
For me eating pheasant this season would be revenge. The bastards hang around my vineyard and they ate every single Pinot Noir bunch this year. 1,500 PN vines, so probably at least 5,000 bunches, and the wankers scoffed every single one. They had started moving on to the other varieties by the time harvest came.
I expect they would have tasted delicious, and fruity in a Burgundian sort of way. But even the local farm shop doesn’t sell the fuckers.
Take this guy, who drank some plutonium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Mastick
"Nonetheless, for days afterwards his breath could make the needle on an ionization chamber go off the scale, even from 6 feet (1.8 m) away.[5] "
He lived to a ripe old age.
"UK should use Farage as ‘bridgehead’ to Trump and Musk, says Mandelson" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/eee1cabc-c49c-4cdd-84bc-7a620d5a6ff1
The rest of the argument is politics vs. economics. How far should we drive warm fuzzies out in order to get more efficiency? How much are the warm fuzzies a luxury that we can't really afford?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dl4vxw501o
It is suspected that this was done by a Chinese ship. The Chinese recently bought the ship from Russia, and the captain and crew are allegedly still Russian.
I await @Leon to blame Ukraine...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80l9lde5yjo
We were self sufficient to about 60% of all food and about 75% of indigenous food so how would we get to 100% self sufficiency? When we last did it (during WW2) we turned large areas over to food cultivation so instead of using green field sites for residential development, perhaps we should convert them to agricultural use - perhaps as tenanted smallholdings (as happened after WW1)?
Alternatively, we could sequester land such as golf clubs or racecourses and turn that land over to food production but I'll leave you to suggest that for the next Conservative Manifesto.
Lee Anderson MP is now greeting his constituents with "Good Morning, Campers" on his "walking-to-work" video shorts.
https://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1858450617049510390/video/1
Now we need "Hello Campers, Hi-de-Hi !"
OTOH, you could say much the same about Reeves’ IHT policy.
I’d agree - particularly post Brexit - that we need to take a hard look at our farming policy. But this is action before thought.
Here’s what he’s just posted on LinkedIn.
The Country Land and Business Association says the new £1m cap on agricultural inheritance tax relief will "harm 70,000 farms". That's 1/3 of all farms.
What does the actual data show? Less than 500 farms/year will pay more tax as a result of this change every year. Possibly as few as 100.
Why 500? Because this table shows only 500 farm estates claimed agricultural property relief (APR) of more than £1m in 2022.
But that overstates the issue. Married couples can easily claim the £1m cap twice. Small farmers without other assets can use their nil rate band. So for a married couple running a farm, it could be worth £2.65m before the restriction on the relief costs them a penny.
That could mean as few as 100 farms per year are affected. And the 20% tax is only on the excess over the threshold, so for most of the 100, the additional tax will be reasonably small. Insure against it when you're young(ish). Give some/all to your kids when you get older.
And the data shows that most of the cost of the tax increase will be borne by a few very large estates. In 2022 2% of agricultural estates - just 37 - claimed an average of £6m.
That's what this is really about - not 70,000 farms. So let's drop the hyperbolic fake stats.
All of which means, of course, that it won’t raise much money either. Whereas BPR…
US startups have raised 3.3x the amount of European VC overall this year, but 5.5x the level of AI investment.
Even in a good year, with megarounds for @wayve_ai @HelsingAI @MistralAI @poolsideai @DeepLcom, Europe trails by a distance.
https://x.com/dealroomco/status/1858872371232256299
In England how is the economic output distributed across the number of farms?
In England in 2017, a small number of economically large farms (8%) produced over half (57%) the agricultural output using just 33% of the total farmed land area.
(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/601041de8fa8f5654da17c26/fbs-evidencepack-28jan21.pdf)
That compares with Very Small (41%) and Small (30%) farms which, combined, produce only 13% of the total output using 28% of the land.
I get that there is more to life than economics, and that heritage and tradition are valuable too. But this does suggest that total UK agricultural output is unlikely to be as negatively affected as some have been claiming if, say, a quarter of the most marginal farms decide to sell up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfsMukgRTd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMJgSjRjfTI
Just because we are not 100% self sufficient in food (actually a bleak prospect considering the things we import which don't grow here) that is no reason to want to reduce how much food we produce. That will simply make things worse. It makes us more reliant on imports which undermines our own farmers and which makes us vulnerable to the sorts of shocks we ghave seen in the last 5 years with covid etc.
This all or nothing argument is just plain dumb.
VB is a surprisingly good interviewer. Fearless and well informed. One of BBC's best now.
It was always said in a less enlightened time that she only had a face for radio. A great pity because TV missed out on quite a talent
On your final paragraph of course the global electoral war against free market globalist liberalism and swing to protectionism and tighter border controls has only just begun
I've seen people put their feet on the wings and pull but I favour a more skilled approach.
What happened then was that county councils bought land and rented it to new smallholders, together with a programme of agricultural education, improved veterinary services, etc. As far as I'm aware, it was far from successful - with most of the smallholdings being unprofitable, many being bankrupted, and the "return to the land" quickly became a return to poverty instead.
If there's anything to be learned from that experience, I suspect that it's that concentrating our efforts on the smallest producers does little to help decrease our reliance on imports.
They advised Biden it was 50% in autumn 2022. What is it now? A paltry 30%?
Interesting the view on BA outage from the Baltics. That was my first reaction too, it also happened the first weekend of the war.
Equinor’s Johann Sverdrop offshore field in Norway lost power yesterday too. “Overheating of a ground based transformer”, the company advised Reuters they did not believe it to be sabotage. Perhaps I am overly suspicious but perhaps it was a warning against Ukraine using US missiles against Russian crude infrastructure.
That's what the right wingers and the Brexiterts have been demanding since I can remember!
Bonfire of regulations, leave the EU and have free trade with the US, etc.
I was convinced you Tories were the free marketeering globalists.
Must be my mistake, I'm sure.
Successive governments have prioritised cheap food for the masses over farmers' economic wellbeing. And I don't necessarily disagree with that.
But hence the anger over this measure.
The doublethink is strong on here this evening.
Her political ear is so tin the Cornish would open a bloody mine.
In the UK, there are excellent labelling requirements, that mean that consumers can choose higher quality food.
In the US, there are very few labelling requirements*.
So, in the US you profit maximize by selling shit. In the UK, you profit maximize by selling better quality produce.
That's nothing to do with the ownership structure.
* Indeed, Monsanto has got laws struck down that required food to disclose whether it contained GMO crops
And they have a point there. I’m sure my small vineyard is managed much less efficiently than the big boys over the hill. But they can’t play both sides, unless they’re saying there’s a Goldilocks farm size that’s bigger than the small time hobbyists who don’t know how to farm but smaller than Monsanto.
Honestly HYUFD, WFO was a cynical Gordon Brown wheeze. Why are you supporting it?
They still exist in some areas and are often horticultural businesses or specialist agri-businesses. The land is in the green belt so can't be developed. For the County Councils, the cost of managing these (either themselves or via a third party) often outweighs any income generated so they seek to merge the small holdings into small farms and try to make them profitable.
Indeed even Corbyn was more pro farmer and small businesses and more willing to tax big corporates than Starmer and Reeves are who seem to want to hammer the former above all. Reeves actually froze corporation tax
Post Brexit arguably Starmer Labour and the LDs are more free marketeering globalists than the Tories and Reform certainly aren't (though even the LDs oppose the tractor tax)
Two things can be simultaneously true:
1. Abolishing IHT exemptions for farms, or VAT exemptions for private schools fees, are good measures from a tax policy perspective.
2. Concentrating solely on abolishing these concessions is strategically unwise from a political economy perspective.
Base broadening tax measures, such as these, are technically sound and increase both the efficiency and the equity of the tax system. But opposition will be strong, and they yield relatively limited returns. A lot of political capital will be spent, and the opportunity cost is large.
The UK tax system needs proper reform. There is no tax policy expert who will say otherwise. Tinkering at the edges won't do it. If the time is all spent fighting small battles, there will be nothing left for a big one.
That’s the problem for Labour. Unless it’s deliberate for reasons I’ve not yet gleaned, it risks being like several recent UK policies - a big distraction.
Many of us who have grown up in the country would take the view that it is possible (and desirable) for Government action to ensure both that farmers earn a decent wage, and that food prices are sensible, by putting a thumb on the scales.
The reason for doing that is to ensure we retain a range of domestic produce (partly for food security and partly for reasons of tradition and heritage) and that we retain a countryside which is deliberately less efficient than it might be in order to make it more pleasant.
We don’t do naked free markets in this country, we do well regulated ones often beaten into the shape we want. It’s less efficient, but it makes it a nicer place to live.
Farmers are often hammered on price but keep on buggering on. They aren't in that sense acting as homus economicus.
How will Monsanto respond to the same pressures I wonder.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o
UPDATE 4 November: The unit on a measure of area was corrected from hectares to acres. A sentence was added detailing the residence nil-rate band rate of inheritance tax.
The end of the single farm payment had a big impact. The biggest impacts on incomes are commodity prices and input prices, particularly labour and chemicals. I’ve certainly felt the increase in the latter this last 2 years.
Reflexively opposing everything the government proposes is their job in the Westminster system.
The "we will support the government when it gets things right" is boilerplate cant, except for real national crisis.
Whether a 100% IHT exemption that has been used increasingly as a tax planning tool by wealthy investors and funds is the right solution to the problem of supporting domestic farming I am pretty sceptical, unlike my Lib Dem parliamentary party it seems.
As I and many others have said, a 10 or 15 year grandfathering provision would have taken all the sting out of this politically and removed any threat to multi generational family concerns.