Bye bye Starmer

[mik]

It's statically insignificant. Labour only got 33% of the vote in the first place so you can say 2 out of 3 people were unhappy before they even got voted in. Not sure what a few million people voting on a petition will change.

Exactly that. According to this House Of Commons analysis Labour received 9,708,716 votes in 2024, which was 33.70% of the votes cast. (Which is incidentally only around 14% of the 68.35 million UK population, but something like 20% of that figure isn't eligible to vote, and 40% of those who were eligible didn't bother to cast any vote).

So if 33.7% voted Labour, 66.3% of those who voted went for someone other than Labour. A total of 19,100,530 votes "against" Labour.

Statistically therefore, there is an argument that unless this new petition gets more than 19,100,530 "signatures" - it would indicate a clear swing of public opinion in favour of Labour.

So it's probably good for whoever created it that pointless petition is pointless.

[Sundayjumper]

The petition for a 2nd EU Referendum got 4.1m votes. So good luck with your 1.8m.

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived ... ons/131215

I wonder how many of these 1.8m screaming gammons insisting that a second vote must be allowed also felt a second vote should be allowed about the EU.

None ? Absolutely none of them ? Gosh. At least pretend to be consistent about how democracy works guys

[Jobbo]

“Harry’s Farage” made me chuckle

I just spotted on Twitter and chuckled too. Not a great look for Harry.

[speedingfine]

Harry Metcalfe has promoted the ridiculous petition on Twitter - https://x.com/harrym_vids/status/186075 ... K4AJQ64qaQ

I have always had a great deal of respect for him until recently - but I think he’s crossed over from unbiased commenter now and that puts into question all of his output. Shame.

Agreed.

[V8Granite]

I wonder if they had brought this policy in as stages if the issue would be so emotional to people ?

It feels like, from the little I’ve seen, that the changes have been brought in with a close enough deadline that lots of people feel trapped, all while feeling abandoned by previous governments over the last few years.

If they turned round tomorrow and said something like, by January the 1st we are making huge changes to an aspect of your retirement, raising retirement age by 5 years, lowering tax thresholds, school leave dates etc, whatever affects you personally, then lots of other groups would do similar.

I mean they only have 4 years, would doing it slowly see enough of a change to see if it works or not despite keeping more people on side etc.

I still think tackling waste should be first on the list but it will always be damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

As for people signing the petition, if people feel it’s their only avenue then that’s fine, belittling people over it is a little silly given many would do the same if the issues directly affected them. Everyone has their own breaking point.

Only 1 car per person per household, most of the country wouldn’t give a shit but many on here would be bloody angry about it.

Dave!

[GG.]

I have not read it in full but Dan Neidle has now written what can really only be considered as a retraction of his previous justification for the policy by pointing out three things most people already saw as obvious - it hits genuine farmers unfairly, doesn't hit people sheltering from IHT hard enough and overall wont bring in very much money. I would post a laughing emoji but its too pathetic for that really.

He then suggests a number of things they should do to rectify it, some of which we've already discussed on here such as not taxing via IHT but on a sale of the business - you know... things that make a lot more sense than how labour have currently approached it...

ETA: here's the post. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danneidl ... er_desktop

Still seems unclear as to whether he's got his sums right to support the 33% he's saying are tax avoiders as he assumes buying it and then tenenting it out gets IHT immediately whereas commentators are pointing out the 7 year rule still applies in that case Let's be charitable and say the direction of travel in the commentary is at least correct.

[Jobbo]

I have not read it in full but Dan Neidel has now written what can really only be considered as a retraction of his previous justification for the policy

He has more data and hasn't retracted his original commentary - he has said that he previously overstated the number of farms affected:


Frankly I think he was too generous in his analysis originally because the big difference is the level of IHT avoidance that has gone into the farming industry - to the detriment of actual farmers. I did say that 20% IHT rather than 40% would make farmland still an attractive way to halve your IHT rate. Now this is playing out so obviously, I think the farmers' protests are likely to change the policy to full IHT over the threshold in order to stop farmland being a tax shelter for non-farmers.

[Jobbo]

Still seems unclear as to whether he's got his sums right to support the 33% he's saying are tax avoiders as he assumes buying it and then tenenting it out gets IHT immediately whereas commentators are pointing out the 7 year rule still applies in that case Let's be charitable and say the direction of travel in the commentary is at least correct.

Just replying to your edit - the 7 year rule is for gifts. If you buy a farm then die in a year's time there is no 7 year rule meaning you were 6 years short of getting the IHT relief on the farm. Not sure what you are talking about here?

[GG.]

Still seems unclear as to whether he's got his sums right to support the 33% he's saying are tax avoiders as he assumes buying it and then tenenting it out gets IHT immediately whereas commentators are pointing out the 7 year rule still applies in that case Let's be charitable and say the direction of travel in the commentary is at least correct.

Just replying to your edit - the 7 year rule is for gifts. If you buy a farm then die in a year's time there is no 7 year rule meaning you were 6 years short of getting the IHT relief on the farm. Not sure what you are talking about here?

Yes but some seem to be saying there is an equivalent for a bare owner of farmland and then allowing a tenant to farm it getting the benefit of the relief - i.e. a different point to the gifting rule but a similar lookback period.

I know he's focusing on the "new data is available" point to make it not look like a retraction but the qualitative arguments about not giving farmers time to plan and not fully dealing with people who are genuinely using it to shelter from IHT still get a lower rate apply regardless. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt you could say that on the basis of his prior assumptions of how it would apply, he was willing to gloss over the unfairness and now he is not - nevertheless it always affected real people and their livelihoods so bringing things in like this quickly (at least, inside the lookback rule that allows management via gifting) and not allowing people time to plan is always bad policy.

ETA: The people commenting on the 7 year point are also private client tax partners so I expect they may be closer to this than Dan.

[Jobbo]

nevertheless it always affected real people

Real people like Harry Metcalfe? Jeremy Clarkson, who is now saying that he didn't buy his farm for IHT saving, directly contradicting himself? If you go through Dan Neidle's analyses in detail you'll notice that the number of actual farmers affected is pretty small and smaller than he initially thought. So his consideration of the effects took that into account.

Farmers really have to be careful what they wish for here. As I said above, I can see a policy change which looks on paper like it assists them but actually brings farmland into the full IHT bracket, applying above a higher threshold than the current proposals. I'm not sure why he didn't realise IHT avoidance was a major driver of farmland purchases before but hey - the data now demonstrate it graphically.

[duncs500]

I really thought Harry was smarter than this. I don't really mind him explaining his concerns with the policy as a farmer with a fair amount of reach, but quite clearly a petition like that is not going to succeed. So why would he risk alienating a big chunk of his followers to endorse something so inconsequential? It's just naive.

[Mito Man]

He was also on about farmers potentially committing suicide next year to transfer the estate to their children before the new IHT rule comes into effect.
Wonder if the NFU will back suicide as an effective tax mitigation strategy!

[dan]

When sky news asked one of the farmers protesting why he didn't just pass the farm on early (he was in his 40's, maybe early 50's) he said 'well, we don't want to, we want to hold on to everything'

[dinny_g]

Ultimately, the decision, the outrage and the outcome is fairly typical democratic process.

New Government sets out a policy, face significant backlash. Rather than a wait and see if it works approach, massive amounts of government energy must be consumed fighting the fires thus, impacting future change and the overall effectiveness of the government.

and repeat.

[Jobbo]

Ultimately, the decision, the outrage and the outcome is fairly typical democratic process.

New Government sets out a policy, face significant backlash. Rather than a wait and see if it works approach, massive amounts of government energy must be consumed fighting the fires thus, impacting future change and the overall effectiveness of the government.

and repeat.

It's only typical process because the Tory government under Boris made it so (and sadly it continued when he stood down) - leak changes, see what the reaction is and then change them. It's a weak form of government and totally without any cohesive forward plan. Look at the distinction from the Cameron/Obsborne era; there may have been austerity but they had an overall plan for growth and stuck to it.

[GG.]

I believe you've forgotten about the Pasty Tax or even the Poll Tax. All parties U-turn when something they do is unexpectedly unpopular (whether such expectations are justified or not). I don't think that is a Boris era onward invention.

I think it probably has become apparent to a lot of people that Starmer's brand of Labour is of the "Old" and not "New" when it comes to economics (and likely many other things). I expect the fact that he was seen as crushing the more left wing elements of the party to make them electable probably lead a decent number of people to misunderstand his politics.

[GG.]

nevertheless it always affected real people

Real people like Harry Metcalfe? Jeremy Clarkson, who is now saying that he didn't buy his farm for IHT saving, directly contradicting himself? If you go through Dan Neidle's analyses in detail you'll notice that the number of actual farmers affected is pretty small and smaller than he initially thought. So his consideration of the effects took that into account.

Farmers really have to be careful what they wish for here. As I said above, I can see a policy change which looks on paper like it assists them but actually brings farmland into the full IHT bracket, applying above a higher threshold than the current proposals. I'm not sure why he didn't realise IHT avoidance was a major driver of farmland purchases before but hey - the data now demonstrate it graphically.

Harry is a real farmer so yes it would affect him and if the change was too quick to allow for planning, unfairly - despite the fact he has built up wealth outside the farm.

It seems that you are saying that you can only support lower IHT on farms if the owner does not generate wealth from other sources. Harry said that he had to branch out to other business ventures as the farm did not provide a sufficient or stable enough income. To then say, well OK but now we'll tax you on the farm you run has just the same effect of people then divesting that asset or taking out of production as a farm asset.

I think you've fallen into the trap of looking at this as personal taxation issue solely rather than supporting farming as a concept (which is exactly what Labour want you to do as they live and die on the argument that you can do what you like to wealthy people with impunity and it be morally justified). Harry is also not (at least to my knowledge from what he has disclosed) like Dyson who made money independently and then is sheltering it through farming - that is very different.

There will then obviously be many others that do not have a barn full of classic cars so picking a billionaire and one wealthy individual hardly supports the argument that everyone affected can just weather the impact.

[Jobbo]

I believe you've forgotten about the Pasty Tax or even the Poll Tax. All parties U-turn when something they do is unexpectedly unpopular (whether such expectations are justified or not). I don't think that is a Boris era onward invention.

I think you've entirely missed my point: protests show strength of feeling but don't (shouldn't) lead to direct policy change in most cases. The poll tax riots were notable because they were unusual, and the pastie tax was a bit of fiddling round the edges which was most effective as an advert for Greggs - I don't remember it leading to massive crowds in Trafalgar Square. Neither are indicative of general policy or democratic protest.

The distinction is that Boris started to do it for everything; social media was an enabler but running a country by floating ideas on Facebook or Twitter and seeing what response they get is utterly inept.

You'll also note that I didn't mention Starmer; I contrasted with Cameron and Osborne who made sensible plans and stuck to them. Well, except for the plan to hold a referendum...

[GG.]

I believe you've forgotten about the Pasty Tax or even the Poll Tax. All parties U-turn when something they do is unexpectedly unpopular (whether such expectations are justified or not). I don't think that is a Boris era onward invention.

I think you've entirely missed my point: protests show strength of feeling but don't (shouldn't) lead to direct policy change in most cases. The poll tax riots were notable because they were unusual, and the pastie tax was a bit of fiddling round the edges which was most effective as an advert for Greggs - I don't remember it leading to massive crowds in Trafalgar Square. Neither are indicative of general policy or democratic protest.

The distinction is that Boris started to do it for everything; social media was an enabler but running a country by floating ideas on Facebook or Twitter and seeing what response they get is utterly inept.

You'll also note that I didn't mention Starmer; I contrasted with Cameron and Osborne who made sensible plans and stuck to them. Well, except for the plan to hold a referendum...

I agree with you on the protest point - it is just an indicator of strength of feeling as you say - I would say it most often goes ignored (as the 500,000 for that Countryside Alliance march and the Brexit petitions showed) if the governing party thinks the majority of the country isn't aligned with those demonstrating.

I actually expect that in the short term the NICs increases will do the most to disillusion Labour's core voters with their policies - it looks likely that there will be a surge in redundancies from retail, casual dining, etc. for those businesses that were already trading on fine margins and can't absorb further staffing cost in a flat market.

The farm IHT is also much less relevant I expect that the withdrawal of the small business and personal pension tax reliefs which are likely to hit a much broader cross section.

[Jobbo]

Harry is a real farmer so yes it would affect him and if the change was too quick to allow for planning, unfairly - despite the fact he has built up wealth outside the farm.

It seems that you are saying that you can only support lower IHT on farms if the owner does not generate wealth from other sources. Harry said that he had to branch out to other business ventures as the farm did not provide a sufficient or stable enough income. To then say, well OK but now we'll tax you on the farm you run has just the same effect of people then divesting that asset or taking out of production as a farm asset.

I think you've fallen into the trap of looking at this as personal taxation issue solely rather than supporting farming as a concept (which is exactly what Labour want you to do as they live and die on the argument that you can do what you like to wealthy people with impunity and it be morally justified). Harry is also not (at least to my knowledge from what he has disclosed) like Dyson who made money independently and then is sheltering it through farming - that is very different.

There will then obviously be many others that do not have a barn full of classic cars so picking a billionaire and one wealthy individual hardly supports the argument that everyone affected can just weather the impact.

Harry's is little more than a hobby farm. Just because he went to agricultural college does not make him a generational farmer; he has only owned his current farm since about 2006. And it's the proceeds of his other businesses that paid for it - Evo magazine, you may have heard of it? I don't think farming was massively more profitable when he did it round Luton/Harpenden area before that but he paid for his Maseratis somehow. He's a good businessman and took a big risk starting Evo; I respect that enormously. The farm is not a business which would support him and his wife even if he didn't have a car habit though.

You're otherwise putting words in my mouth and utterly missing the massive IHT scheme which farmland has become. Land won't stop being farmland if the wealthy investors who buy it as a tax saving scheme cease to do that. Harry is in the middle in that he knows how to farm, but he is using it as an IHT shelter.