“You people” is incredibly Partridge.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
“You people” is incredibly Partridge.
They’re literally just sharing a pithy little tweet saying that the Tories have no right to be defending farmers when they have absolutely savaged them in recent years. He isn’t sharing an opinion on inheritance tax or justification around protesting.
Swing and a miss.
Did he get the Corbyn treatment?
Exactly, thank you.
So, can you actually read that then?
Here's an extract from a Chinese history textbook. The language used in insane and pure fearmongering.
I don't care, just think that trying to re-frame a narrative says more about you political biased based beliefs than the facts that are in front us.
Like....raise the threshold for farmers to say four million.
@Berbasbullet so posting it today has zero correlation in the protesting of inheritance tax on farmers?
Are you also saying that the opposition can not have an opinion or point out that they think it's a wrong choice.
He’s a hypocritical fecking cnut.
I have no idea what your fecking problem is. You've clearly taken a personal issue with my post. Maybe it's because you are a Tory supporter, if that's the case then just say it. No the opposition are fecking hypocrites after destroying the country for 14 years and then come out pretending to care about an industry they did feck all to support for 14 years. Due to that, I couldn't give a feck what their opinion is.
Last edited:
What are you on about? Of course it’s to do with the protesting. They’re literally just saying that certain Tories pretending to be friends of farmers are being hypocrites as they have not been supportive over the years.
That’s all the tweet/they have said, anything beyond that is something you wish they have said to try and make some semblance of a point.
Me in 2019 holding a monkey paw while wishing for a Labour Party doing class war -
Yup, I studied mandarin for 6 years via private tutors.
I still struggle with writing by hand though, but to type mandarin you just need to be able to read characters and type pinyin.
You're a man of many talents, shame I find so many of your views abhorrent.
Yeah it's a good clip. It seems to me that the real cause of anger isn't the IHT changes but farmers knowing this will impact their assets future appreciation.
Given the actual impact of this policy it's been a right cluster feck from Labour though.
Yep the communication from Labour has been appalling, they have simply not been ahead of the narrative at all.
Does labour need to patiently explain why they are closing every tax loophole? People have been asserting there's billions to be had in closing tax loopholes, this is as open and shut a case as one could wish for (in a constituency that traditionally doesn't vote labour anyway).
At the same time, we also get to enjoy the sight of James dysons Brexit chickens coming home to roost - chances are we wouldn't be rummaging down the back of his sofa for money if we were still in the single market.
Why is this so? The land likely can't be used for things other than farming, which is a notoriously difficult industry to make any money in. Why would farm land appreciate so much?
Not that I agree with Clarkson on this, but that's referencing something completely different. Reducing both to "protesting about money" is dishonest.
Land is finite. I am sure not all land is equal but I reckon any farmer with a field that borders an urban area is sitting on some incredibly lucrative land.
Because people with infinitely deep pockets have been getting involved, I've seen some agents in the news saying close to half of all land sales are investors trying to dodge tax. The remaining farmers are also generally asset rich so have been able to borrow lots of cash at low rates to expand the farms and diversify into holiday lets and other activities (with the full support of government policy).
Genuine farmers have been getting stretched by inflated land prices but as usual government policy to counteract it is ham fisted and short sighted.
they should introduce a Tweed tax.
I was at an event with NFU last week. They say that the Government Treasury data doesn't stack up, and DEFRA data tells a different story. They were (apparently) two weeks before the budget by the Government that the changes which have occurred "were not on the table", so feel lied to. Anyone writing to an MP is getting a standard rely, other than those in rural areas who are engaging, as you might expect.
It's a complex issue. Anecdotally, the event I was at was attended by an Accountant who specialised in Agricultural clients running pretty standard family farms which are not that profitable. He said that 75% of those clients would be impacted by the changes. They also lose on the changes in BPR as well, given that farm assets were usually treat as business assets.
Most farmers I spoke to at the event have a real problem. Leaving the farm in the family will require the next generation to borrow significant sums to pay the inheritance tax. They're not businesses which make a lot of profit.
NFU are lobbying, as you'd expect, for a change or to up the threshold. They'll use food security as the leverage. Importing food, as it does with energy, leaves the country exposed. They'll also raise the issue of us then buying food from countries who probably don't have enough of their own.
I see both sides here. I deal with farmers a lot and most of them are not wealthy, other than the notional value in the land they hold. Inheritance isn't like when someone get's a house or asset for free when their parents die, they have to use the asset to generate an income.
It's not complex at all. Labour wanted to skew taxes towards the group least likely to vote for them, and one their voter base view with contempt and envy. Mission accomplished.
The resulting food security and cost issues that arise in a couple of years will be spun as evil supermarket chains profiteering.
I don't know any farmers who have yet figured out how to deal with this, other than one sitting on a few thousand acres who long ago put everything into various trusts. I also don't know any who aren't going to he affected by this. The number that matters is not the number of farms impacted but the land coverage. No point having 10 untouched 50 acre hobby farms if the one 10,000 acre farm that produces all the food has to sell up.
Or....
Labour is trying to close obvious tax loopholes and is trying to go where the money is.
I don't see why farmers should be treated differently in the tax system just to enable James Dyson to dodge £100million in tax.
It's pretty clear that small family farmers will be gone in less than 20 years. Living our here in rural Shropshire and you get to appreciate how little they actually make despite working insane shifts.
That's another part of our culture gone. It'll have a big effect on rural England.
Going after the large corporate farmers I can understand.
That's another part of our culture gone. It'll have a big effect on rural England.
Going after the large corporate farmers I can understand.
It's because Labour hasn't been the 'natural party of government', for some time... if ever, and are learning on- the-job.
Starmer is seemingly taking (relatively small) total amounts of money from almost everywhere, in order to make up the 'black hole' left by the previous government; who always claim to be the 'natural party of Government' and therefore should have known better.
The issue for farming is that on an island ownership of land, regardless of how it is used, is a major asset, and the basis of retained/transferred wealth, ('old money') if you like.
The 'asset' for farmer's is in the land they live on and work on; however it is now to be subject to inheritance tax, but it has to be said at much better rates than most others who qualify for such tax. However no doubt it is a big blow for some and like everyone caught in tax changes, at the margins, some farmers will suffer; as will some pensioners, and some families with more than two children.
Yes, the amounts involved and their impact will vary, but the government appears to see it all as relative to getting the finances of the country in order.
Taking money from people, especially where they didn't expect it, is always going to be seen as something of a 'cluster feck'; however its done. There could have been more thought about 'tapering' etc. but Labour always claimed it wanted to hit the 'ground running' and it has, albeit with a few trips and skid-marks on the way!
It's more to get their message out a bit more to counteract the lies being told by the other side. Don't think it's out there as much regarding people affected etc.
I was referring to the right to protest in general.
I'm not objecting to them closing the loopholes. They should do that. Let me know when it happens.
This is a blunt instrument that doesn't really solve what it's trying to solve and creates a whole load more problems to go along with it. The tax dodgers will use their enormous wealth to find ways around it whilst the real farmers get fecked over, and pass the costs down to everybody else. It plays right into the hands of the conglomerate farms we are supposed to be targeting. It's a continuing theme so far of a government that doesn't have a fecking clue what its doing despite knowing for years now it was going to be in power this summer.
With the news unravelling about Rachel Reeves it's hardly surprising i suppose.
It's complicated by a perception that tax increases which affect businesses and people generally, are not being shared. The average person doesn't have knowledge about farming or the implications of this and want to see that "we're all in it together". They've also been lead to believe that the reason for this (which is only partially true) is to stop the rich getting a tax break by buying up agricultural land.
There are ways to mitigate, from a legal/tax planning standpoint but Farmers are notoriously reluctant to take advice and get things in order, in my experience.
That is depressing. IMO if the government achieves only one thing, it should be that (and even that is not a sufficiently ambitious target). They need to move heaven and earth to meet it.
Jeremy Clarkson has admitted that the main reason for buying his farm was not only so he could shoot with impunity, but for tax reasons.
He is hardly a good role model for farmers despite the publicity he brings.
The IHT rate of 20% above the threshold for farms passed down, is exactly half that of the standard IHT rate.
They have the majority to do it. Otherwise we are rinsing and repeating the promises and apologies of previous governments.
This analysis seems to answer the points quite definitively, doesn't it?
Would be interested to hear those who are so concerned about it respond to it. Surely the best data on who's affected by the threshold is the actual number of uses of the exemption - as per the clip. Everything else is lobbying waffle.