Category: Economy

Labour’s IHT Policy: A Threat to Family Farms?

Labour is driving down a road it’s driven before. It’s a shame when the two biggest political parties in Britain are so captured by their past that they can no more look forward than a duck can master arithmetic.

Post Second World War the country was broke. Rising taxes were inevitable to pay down debt. The British State was far more directly involved in everyday economic decisions than it is now.

Inheritance Tax (IHT) got its status as a loathed tax partially because of the necessary actions of the post-1945 Government. At that time, “estate duty” was increased to 80%. This generated increase tax revenue but led to the breakup of large country estates up and down Britain. Ironically, the breakup of country estates created an opportunity for some tenant farmers. As the estates were sold off in lots so tenants could become owners, if they could raise the finance.

So, you might say farmers paying IHT at 20% isn’t so bad by comparison. The amount of generated increase tax revenue isn’t much. With one hand the Government is subsidising farmers and with the other hand it’s taking a cut of their lifetime acquired assets.

Another side of the coin is the cost-of-living crisis. Certainly, winter heating costs have been a matter of great concern for a lot of people. Food too is an absolutely essential expense. Hence, the growth of food banks in every part of the country. This shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

All of this is happening at a time when the nation’s supermarkets are making healthy profits. Keeping cheap food on the shelves with, in some cases, the philosophy of sell it cheap and pile it high. Industrialised and highly processed food coming in at the lowest prices to the customer. At the other end of the supply chain, forcing down farm gate prices.

You would think that getting national food production, the job done by farmers, right would be an imperative for Government. You would think that a regular dialogue with farmers might be quite important. Wouldn’t you?

The problem with Labour’s 20% IHT and the threshold of 1 million is that it’s not going to have much impact of those who own large country estates to avoid other taxes, like CGT. It’s not going to have much impact on large corporate agricultural enterprises. It may not even have much overall impact on land prices. Afterall, they don’t make it anymore.

But it’s going to clobber small and medium sized enterprises, very often family farms. It will clobber far more than the Treasury’s last-minute calculations say[1]. The reason is clear. The profitability of family farming has been dire over recent years. Add a new tax bill and selling-up will be the most attractive option for many potential next generation farmers.

Then the question must be asked what’s it all about? What are the values underpinning this policy? There I go back to the start. Does Labour perceive these working people as “rich”. Their logic may go, why shouldn’t the rich pay more after the Conservative Government that they supported has made such a mess of the country? One way of seeing where we are.

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/how-many-farmers-will-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax

UK Farmers’ Unrest: Budget Shock and Political Implications

Yesterday, central London was full of British farmers. Far more than was anticipated. It’s a countryside revolt. Or at least the seed corn of unrest. It needs to be addressed quickly.

The UK Government Budget sprung an unexpected shock on farmers. Newly elected, everyone expected them to try to correct the spending mess left by their predecessors. However, few expected them to make-up last minute figures to do something they said they wouldn’t do.

Lots of family farmers could be singing the classic Beatles song “Yesterday”. Troubles seemed so far away before the general election. Now, they seem here to stay.

Like androids, and the Tories before them, Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) are trotting out lines prepared for them by their masters. The political excuse trotted out robotically is that the theoretical threshold for taxation is £3 million and not £1 million as everyone is saying. Therefore, they say, fewer farm businesses will be impacted by their new death tax.

When something goes wrong in Government one of the best strategies is to address the facts immediately, apologies for any error, take the temporary hit and move on quickly. Stonewalling and wibbling is an extremely poor approach.

For a start, many farmers will not be able to take-up the tax reliefs Labour MPs are talking about. Farming is a hazardous profession. Sadly, unexpected deaths are not unusual. If such an event occurs this could then result in compounded tragedy, that is the death of a family business too.

Farmers are pointing out that significantly wealthy people will still use land purchase to avoid tax. They will have complex and detailed tax planning services at their fingertips.

Agricultural land values have increased dramatically in recent decades. Yes, there is an issue to be addressed with respect to land value. Housing development land is an astronomical price. It’s one of the drivers that is making house prices unaffordable for many people.

Labour needs to recognise that it’s not food producers who are driving these negative phenomena. It’s not small and medium sized family farms who are the problem makers.

Not only is this new inheritance tax very poor politics by Labour, but it’s also not going to crack the problem that they might wisely wish to crack. I’d say, think again. At least consult.

Ignoring Climate Change?

In a way, I’m not immune from a little hypocrisy. Petrol prices go up and I’m not going to jump for joy. Prices go down. I’m not suddenly thinking that’s just going to encourage more consumption. No, I’m looking at the pound in my pocket. It will cost me less to fill up the tank.

There was a whole swath of apocalyptic tales of the world in the 1970s. The “oil crisis” of 1973 should have been a warning. Humanity might have taken the opportunity to look at the trends related to oil and gas consumption. There might have been a more sustained reaction.

Instead, alternative lifestyles, renewable energy projects and energy conservation were thought of as quaint novelties or scientific curiosities that would never really catch on. The political addiction to short-termism overrode consideration of substantial change. Increased exploration led to new sources of oil and gas being found.

Today, we should know better. The fight against climate change has a decade of talk behind it. Humanity knows that the link exists between burning hydrocarbon and a changing global climate. We are ignorant no more. Now, I almost wish I hadn’t written that last sentence.

Across the pond there’s a powerful nation. One that influences the behaviour of 100s of other nations. The US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. However, until the last few weeks it had recognised that maybe that isn’t a good formula for the future.

Back to that dollar in the pocket. Despite the US being a powerful nation many its people didn’t feel that way. All politics is local. When filling up with gas gets more expensive people do not jump for joy. In fact, there’s that human tendance to romanticise the past and remember when everything was cheaper. Life was easier. Can’t we go back?

It’s being reported that US President elect Trump’s choice for energy secretary is going to be like turning the clocks back. Prospect is that the fight against climate change is going to get a back seat. At least for the next 4-years.

Does this spell global disaster? Well, it certainly is a great big lost opportunity. Just like here in the UK, Brexit ignited the tendance to romanticise the past. It looks as if the same phenomena have taken root in the US. Burning more and more hydrocarbons is like a sugar rush. A boom to begin then followed by exhaustion. I expect after this presidential term the results will be one of regret. Just like Brexit. A wonderment – why on earth did we do that?

Still, there’s an opportunity for other countries to race ahead with advanced and alternative technologies to reduce energy dependency. It’s hard to think and act long-term. I’m confident it can be done. If it’s done successfully the prize will be great.

New Form of Monarchy in 2024?

An observation. There’s something strange going on across the Atlantic. You see, I have found inspiration in the story of America’s revolutionary struggle. The writings of Thomas Paine stirring up a radical movement. The strong desire to be independent of the rule of Kings and Queens. There’s a lot to be said for freeing a nation from imperial tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is a bold statement. Rejecting the royal authority of George III to set a new nation on an independent path. It proved to be a dynamic and prosperous democratic path. One that people across the world looked on with admiration.

It’s true that the United States has had its own dynasties. Powerful families and influential individuals that have shaped its history. However, since its independence, none of them have ruled as a monarch. None have wheeled massive power without checks and balances.

Yet here we are in 2024, and a form of pseudo monarch stands ready to take the reigns of power. Sure, democracy has played its part in putting one man in control. That, in of itself, is not unknown in the history books. The question to ask is when does a Republic tip over and become something quite different from what it has been?

I hope my observations are an exaggeration. It’s all to easy to see the News that commentators want us to see. I’ve often found that it’s most difficult to see things as they actual are as opposed to how they are shaped by personal beliefs and fleeting desires. Objectivity isn’t so easy.

This much can be said, the next four years are going to be turbulent ones. There’s a certainty in that conclusion. Even with the Atlantic in the way, just as the Jetstream brings us changeable weather, so unsettling waves of transformation will hit our shores.

The latest commentary coming from supporters of the new Trump regium in the US is one of polarisation. It’s the traditional stick-up. Choose between us and them. Our populous island off the shore of continental Europe must be squeezed into a choice between the US and the EU.

This monosyllabic way of framing a debate gets swallowed by the media. Overall, it’s nonsense. There’s no way that both will not be important for as far over the horizon as anyone can see. Both are going through periods of disruption. For once, domestically, the UK seems relatively stable. That’s putting aside the past damage done by Brexit and a Conservative government that fell into total disrepair. Yes, the UK can plot its path knowing that some internal consistency can be expected.

Everything I’ve written here is overshadowed by issues of global concern. Overshadowed being the sad reality. Climate change will not wait for the dust to settle from ardent disruptors. The planet’s atmosphere knows nothing of the exploits of prominent personalities. We desperately need to rediscover common interests and act on common concerns.

Travelling Post-Brexit

Ever since Brexit, I’ve had to have my passport stamped in and out of European countries. It’s like a reversion to the days when I got my first British passport. That was back in the late 70s.  It has a frighteningly youthful picture. Occupation – student.

I’m not so phased by the coming changes to European Union (EU) border controls. Naturally, it’s worth asking if Britian has become a more dangerous nation since the time before Brexit when we enjoyed freedom of movement. It’s a pity we didn’t value that freedom a lot more. It was thrown away far too easily.

Today, the electronic border controls expect us to stare at a camera. A securely held, I hope, database is used to check a list of biometric numbers against my image. I guess that’s a sure-fire way of saying that Mr Blogs is indeed someone who looks very much like Mr Blogs. Facial recognition technology has come a long way.

The next steps in tightening-up controls will be fingerprinting[1]. Not in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, with an ink pad. No, in the digital age an ominous machine will scan our fingers and check its records to see that not only does Mr Blogs look as he should but that he’s got the essential characteristics of Mr Blogs.

Certainly, in this new regime British citizens will not be able to overstay in European countries. Ones travel records will be a lot more quantifiable and precise than stamping a piece of paper. That is assuming such digital border control machines will be relatively error free.

One of the benefits of Brexit is that it will be easier to track the movements of British criminals in and out of the EU. The reciprocal will not be true. It will not be easier for British authorities to track continental European criminals in an out of the UK.

Ah the luxury of being a Third Country. Longer ques. More uncertainty. Less privileges.

What’s more is the introduction of the new EU border control systems will be “phased[2]”. This change will not be one big bang. So, different ports and airports will be doing different things at different times. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to see that confusion is most likely.

Travelling in 2025 is going to be more than the usual adventure.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-eu-entry-exit-system-and-eu-travel-authorisation-system/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/eu-biometric-border-fingerprint-entry-delay-b2627645.html

Ethics of Medication

I don’t know about you but the whole idea of medicating people to increase the prosperity of society has a terrible echo of the worst kind of politics. Now, if we change the “p” word to protection of society, a policy of medication might make some reasonable sense. The COVID pandemic taught use that individual freedoms are not absolute. We know that allowing people to spread infection, whenever their personal beliefs, can kill other people. Reckless actions did exposed people to danger. Big name politicians did some dam stupid stuff just because they wanted to side with those who believed irrational, unscientific nonsense.

A UK Labour Health Minister saying that obese people would benefit from a jab so that they can get back to work makes me feel uneasy. It’s one thing to recognise that society has a problem with obesity but it’s entity another for the States to impose medication on specific groups of citizens. Expensive new medication that that.

I know it can be argued that the cost of obesity to the National Health Service (NHS) is high so there’s no zero cost answer. Having hammered down smoking deaths over decades of work it’s now obesity that’s the great societal challenge. The line between personal freedoms and social demands can be a fuzzy one.

The jab in question may have become fashionable as a weight loss aid[1]. That doesn’t justify a UK Minister, with all the power of the State, suggesting that overweight people be put on a regime of injections. And if they say “no” to the regime then be penalised in some vague manner.

It’s known that these new weight loss drugs have side effects. No everyone can take them without consequences. These drugs should only be used under medical supervision. That said, many people do take them without recourse to advice from a doctor.

To the Minister I say, don’t ague about the cost to the economy of obese people. Please ague for helping people to make weight management work for them as individuals. Obese people are not one amorphous mass of idle slobs who sit on the sofa all day. The Daily Mail characterisation of bludgeoning swarms of people burdening society with their indolent ways may chime with populists and the emerging Conservative Party. It’s no way for a Labour Minister to address a live challenge. 

National proposals to give unemployed obese people a jab to get them back to work has a ghastly ring to it. Yes, it’s not saying we (society) should send them down the salt mines but when the economic argument is the top one it does dehumanise the target audience.

Weight loss jabs may continue to have potential befits for many people. Let’s say that we are talking about health benefits, so that individuals can play their role in our society, whatever that role might be. State officials who attempt bring shame on people living with obesity, that’s just plain nasty.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981044pgvyo

Changing Political Landscapes

You can tell the type of person I am. I occasionally stop for a morning coffee in Gail’s[1]. Overall, I favour cafe Nero. Better coffee. An Italian vibe. That said, the expanding up-market bakery has a pleasant ambience. They are taking over and restoring the more regal old bank buildings of the High Street. Britain’s national banks have long since moved out.

In the last 9-months, I’ve moved from a town that had both, to a town that until recently had only one. It wasn’t my influence, but a Gail’s has opened a new shop in recent weeks. Post election, I might add. I’ve moved from a Conservative town to one that is no longer a Conservative town.

Anyway, there I was doing a bit of lunchtime shopping in Waitrose. It has a small cafe in one corner of the supermarket. Stopped for a ham, egg and chips and a flat white coffee. On a rack on the wall is a display of daily newspapers. I’m pleased to say that there’s a weekly local newspaper there too.

The Times and The Daily Mail are there for the delight of their customers. Two national newspapers that I am not going to spend my hard-earned cash on unless I’m desperate for something to read. Both tabloids aimed at a broadly conservative readership. 

The Mail is serialising the writings of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. No doubt he’s getting an astonishing amount of money for his latest scribblings. Journalism was his calling.

To sell a book about political life the book certainly mustn’t be boring. Charity shops are littered with shelves of books from long forgotten personalities. My observation is that Johnson has taken aim at an audience that still thinks of him as a worthy premier.

I couldn’t resist. Had to speed read the parts that spilled the beans. The parts that dug the dirt. The revelations. Except that’s not what I read in speech bubble paragraphs. First off, I was remined of The Beano[2]. The world’s longest-running comic for children. Johnson’s language assumed my reading age to be about 12-years old. A jolly wizard wheeze ticking-off those fancy pants or misery guts who haunted his days in power. Apart from saving the known universe his anecdotes were mostly to the detriment of the people mentioned. One exception being his dad.

In a moment of reflection, it’s astonishing that Johnson once led this great country. He led London too. What on earth were we thinking? How did it happen? One or two more serious books have gone down that road. I was recommended to read “Johnson at 10 by Anthony Seldon[3].” By the way, you can tell the type of person I am. Earlier in the year, that book suggestion came from the person standing next to me, wating to go into the BBC Proms at the Royal Albert Hall.

[1] https://gails.com/

[2] https://shop.beano.com/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/24/johnson-at-10-by-anthony-seldon-and-raymond-newell-review-the-great-pretender

Why the UK Should Rejoin

Fine, I’m happy to admit that my march, with thousands of others, through the streets of London on Saturday was not everyone’s cup of tea. There are a lot of people who support the idea of a return to European Union (EU) membership but are reluctant to raise the issue just now.

Often cited is the wave of right-wing politicians who are gaining ground in Europe’s larger countries. It’s as if they are going through their own Brexit like political moment but without anyone of any consequence advocating throwing away their EU membership.

Maybe the UK is ahead in this respect. We’ve been through the confusion and turbulence of the political right-wing eccentrics moment in the sun. They were never mainstream. However, they did hold the reins of power for some disastrous years. Thank God they are now behind us.

I have marched year-after-year because it’s the right thing to do. Tens of thousands from all over the UK have done the same as me. Millions if the numbers added-up from 2016 onward. Our future can be based on cooperation and mutual interests. Ideologically driven conflict and disruption have brought nothing but a lose – lose outcome.

So, what are the arguments for the rejoin movement? It’s all very well to shout at the thing we don’t like. Now, is the time to make the sound solid arguments for the thing we favour.

Let’s take trade for a start. The last UK Government wallowed in gushes of self-praise every time they signed an agreement with any country that was not European. Conservative Members of Parliament wanted to tower over the world like imperial overseers. It was an illusion.

Most of the so called “new” deals that were signed were simply a rollover that meant no change. In fact, more was given away than was gained. All in a desperate attempt to show progress. British farming was effectively shafted by Ministers.

One of the most touted possible “streets paved with gold[1]” was the prospect of a super new trade deal with the United States (US). Under President Trump, the prospect of an advantageous UK-US trade deal was an illusion.

Ironically, a claimed success was the joining of a regional trade block. I know it’s crazy that leaving a gigantic trade block on the UK’s doorstep was followed by joining one covering the Pacific. Yes, the other side of the world. Not only that but the projected gains are minuscule.

EU membership offers, as it did before, access to enormous trade benefits by comparison with what has been achieved since 2016. The numbers speak for themselves.

If the new Labour Government continues with a form of the fibs told during the “Get Brexit Done” phase, then trouble lies ahead. Next door, the UK has the world’s largest trading block. The value to the British economy of Single Market membership exceeds a mishmash of remote and small deals. There’s a positive way forward and it’s staring us in the face.

POST: It’s worth noting that the 1960 European Free Trade Association (EFTA ) was created, to promote free trade and economic integration included: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/streets-are-paved-with-gold

National Rejoin March: Unity for a European Future

The European Movement[1] has been around for 75-years. Yesterday, I was surrounded by a good number of their membership. That, and many Liberal Democrats. People, young and old, from communities up and down Britain. There were lots of people from the creative industries, so badly hit by Brexit. In fact, there were people of every political background marching through the streets of central London.

Everybody had gathered in central London with the aim of reversing the tragedy that is Brexit. I say “is” and not “was” because the disaster continues to have marked repercussions on everyday life. Reclaiming the freedoms that we once had has brought people together in large numbers.

On Saturday, pro-European campaigners made their way from Park Lane to Parliament Square for the third annual National Rejoin March (NRM)[2]. The weather smiled on the gathering. It couldn’t have been better in the light of torrential rain and the endless storms of past days. The sunshine and blue skies warmed my sprit.

The occasional chant of “Boll*cks to Brexit” has been replaced by Reset, Repair, Rejoin. As is the tradition of these events, posters ranged from the more obvious slogans, like #BinBrexit to the imaginative and sometimes bizarre. The group dressed in eye catching elephant costumes had a point to make. The elephant in the room being the protesters theme.

Standing next to me, one young lad asked his mate why he had decided to be on this rejoin march. I thought his response most was appt: “Because I want to be on the right side of history”. To me that just about sums it up. Brexit is an aberration. Eventually, after a great deal of to-and-fro the strong likelihood is that the UK will rejoin the European Union (EU), or its successor. Everything we know points in that direction. It may take a decade. It may take more.

The Labour Party won the 4th July UK General Election, and while it pledged not to reopen the main parts of Britain’s deal to leave the EU, does claim to want a significant reset. So far, the indications are that this policy line is typical political rhetoric, and little more. But it must be said that this is the early days of a new British government. If their claim to want growth in the economy to fuel spending on public services is honest, they would be mighty foolish to discount rejoining the European Single Market.

Thousands gathered in London. This will go on year after year. The diminishing number of objectors, who chant from the sidelines, remind me of the “Dead Parrot Sketch”[3]. For all intents and purposes all the arguments for Brexit have perished, much like the poor parrot. Even when that’s an obvious fact there are still those few people who will defend it to the hilt. As we walked down St James’s Street a well dressed bloke in a side street seemed most agitated. Shouted abuses and ran off. I looked around. We all shrugged our shoulders. I certainly thought – what a sad man.

I’m sure Britain can reclaim its place in Europe. It will take resolve and continuous effort but, as has been pointed out, this campaign is on the right side of history.

[1] www.europeanmovement.co.uk

[2] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-call-uk-rejoin-european-154046221.html?

[3] https://youtu.be/vZw35VUBdzo

Navigating the Future

The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades. It’s a 1986 song title but a wonderful catchphrase. Am I going to be optimistic enough to use it on Monday 22nd July? Well, why not? Suddenly, the world looks different.

A dull and sullen presidential race in the US has flipped overnight. We’ve shed the heavy load of incompetence of the last UK government. And even France avoided a catastrophe, in the political sense. Maybe times are getting better. It’s been hard to believe the world of the 21st Century was one that was going to get better and better. With the climate crisis, pandemic, wars and narcissistic political mad people around we can be forgiven for thinking that all is not well.

As a sideline, watching the video of Timbuk 3[1] doing the song and it’s a great reminder of the leaps technology has made in four decades. Cool computer graphics of the 1980s now look ghastly. Lumpy and blocky primary colours bouncing around a cathode ray tube. A 5-year-old with cardboard cutouts could have matched the graphics.

Now, maybe some of the right-wing outliers of the political landscape will turn out to be one-hit wonders. Manufactured to rail with grievances and offering no workable solutions. Dug into a depressing victim culture. If there are cycles in politics, wouldn’t it be fantastic if we were starting an upswing in optimism. Sadly, so far the public attitudes of the first part of the 21st Century have been a chorus of gloom and doom.

The pop song is not simple one. I read it that there’s a healthy degree of irony in its words. A love of nuclear science at a time when the cold war was still raging around us may have been poking fun at optimism as much as optimism itself. Anyway, thank you P. Macdonald, wherever you are.

Square eyes looking through square glasses is an image, perhaps a warning, that one day we’d all be glued to handheld portable rectangular screens that would come to dominate our lives. Now, that prediction would have required a lot of imagination in 1986.

The future is bright. I’ll go with the contention that progressively we are turning a corner. Ok, fine it’s a more dangerous world than it ever has been but, in the spirt of the song, don’t let that get you down. We have it within our capacity to navigate through the dangers that are out there.

It would be dumbest to go with the notion that every problem has a simple fix. That at the wave of a hand wars would end. That they wouldn’t have even started if some demigod was in power. There are no modern day emperors with magical powers and a mountain of cost free answers.

A liberal future is one where positive change is possible, but we are not blind to the difficulties of making it happen. The future is bright, or it can be.

[1] https://youtu.be/nsRKleS-Ihk?list=RDEM3bP5Qf7ThmHO83SwcyDhbw