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.

Daily writing prompt
What’s your favorite month of the year? Why?
View all responses

Beware the Ides of March. What nonsense. March is the start of the New Year. Spring has sprung. Meteorological spring starts on 1st March[1].

Spring is sprung, the grass is ris. I wonders where the birdies is.

They say the birds is on the wing. Ain’t that absurd?

I always thought the wing was on the bird.

That little ditty always reminds me of my father-in-law. Spring has got to be the best time of the year. March is its herald. In ancient Rome the traditional New Year celebrations kicked-off in March. That is until Julius Caesar changed the calendar[2]. Look what happened to him.

Above and beyond all this history, my birthday is in March. So, what better month to celebrate.

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/spring/when-does-spring-start

[2] https://www.britannica.com/science/Julian-calendar

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.

Daily writing prompt
What’s the first impression you want to give people?
View all responses

In answer, so much depends on the situation. Clearly, standing on a platform in front to a large audience is different from getting on a train and smiling at fellow passengers.

I almost needn’t say, first impressions are incredibly important. Every textbook echoes that line. For all our advancement and sophistication, judging people in the first couple of minutes we meet them is imbedded. Maybe it’s some ancient human defence mechanism that discriminates between friend and foe. We can be ready to embrace or flee at the drop of a hat.

There’s the core of an answer. First off, in most situations, the impression to give is that of a potential friend. If the people in question are openly threatening, then precisely the opposite comes into play. Call it “caveman” but these human responses are intrinsic.

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.

Exploring the Kennet & Avon Canal

It’s the road to the west. The A4 out of London heads towards the west. It’s younger but bigger brother the M4 motorway goes the same way. Going the same way too is the Great Western railway and before that a major waterway, a canal. I guess the ancient roads predate the lot of them given that east-west traffic is an important part of English history. Certainly, the Romans went that way.

I now live at what is roughly the halfway point between London and the west. It’s where what is largely a level route from London starts to rise at a slow pace. That climb made linking rivers, most particularly the London Thames and the river Avon in the west, a challenge. The incentives were evident. So, much potential for trade. Moving heavy commodities around. Canals are truly visionary engineering infrastructure and now an inheritance that’s much treasured.

For people who like to walk, like me, canal towpaths[1] provide flat route between towns. A direct waterside route that wanders through lush countryside. Yesterday, I did the 15km between Newbury and Hungerford. Along that stretch, the Kennet & Avon Canal raises about 150 feet but it’s almost unnoticeable. The main signs are the difference between the fast-flowing waters of the river Kennet and the sober slow canal. A littering of canal locks and small brick-built bridges are a feature too.

The Kennet & Avon Canal was constructed between 1795 and 1810. It was eventually killed-off as a commercial enterprise by the construction of the Great Western railway. Being cheaper and faster along the iron road, transport of goods by water couldn’t compete. It’s in this modern time that the canal was restored. It’s been working again for the last 30 years. Now, it’s a centre of leisure pursuits, small businesses and alternative lifestyles.

The canal’s path follows the River Kennet and its narrowing flood plain. I found looking at how the waterflow is controlled by sluice gates and weirs a fascinating part of the walk. Ambling along the canal’s towpath is a great way to venture into the Berkshire countryside. There are a couple of points where the path changes sides and it’s a bit soggy in one or two places but overall, it’s relatively easy walking.

I did see an Otter on the opposite bank. It was a fleeting glimpse. He, or she, slinked away almost before I realised what I was looking at. Quite different from noisy ducks this Otter made virtually no sound or ripples on the water. 

Dotted along the canal near bridges, decaying concrete World War II-era pillboxes are a reminder that this would have been a defensive line if Britain had ever been invaded.

The walk took me under 4 hours. I was exceedingly fortunate with the weather on the day. A cool breeze and intermittent sunshine. Not bad for November.

[1] https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/walking

Daily writing prompt
Is there an age or year of your life you would re-live?
View all responses

The power of 1976. At an age when the future was a blank page. Specialness of that 12-months, almost unsurpassed in the analogue world. Years of 45 rpm. Music was brilliantly diverse. It wasn’t only Punk bursting onto the scene. Pink Floyd’s pig flew over a London. The Eagles release Hotel California. Dylan, The Stones, Led Zeppelin and Elton John travelled the world. Presley was around. The Beatles continued to be news. Eric Clapton became persona non grata. The range of acts was astonishing, going from the Bee Gees to Bob Marley. From Donna Summer to Queen. The Rocky Horror Picture Show to Abba.

As if to stress the innocence of the time. Filming starts on Star Wars. If a time machine was ready to use at the press of a button, I’d go back and say: you guys may have something with this strange movie. Of course they would ignore me. Lucky me.

Why British Family Farms Face Increasing Tax Pressure

I do get why the UK Labour Government has proposed to change the rules on agricultural property relief[1]. It’s the case that the very largest agricultural estates pay lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smaller estates. Large agricultural estates are not the ones who need a tax relief.

In yesterday’s budget statement a 100 per cent rate relief will continue to be applicable to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business assets. That might sound fine to the average British householder. The problem is that in the farming world a threshold of asset value of £1 million is low.

For small holders or hobby farmers, that threshold maybe fine. However, if a productive farm is a viable “modern” business then that threshold is easily exceeded. Looking ahead, even a modest family farm, which is a going concern, is going to tip that tax balance.

On average the value of farmland is over £8000 per acre. The viable family farm I have in mind is no less than 150 acres. Naturally, that number depends on the farm, arable or livestock.

Sadly, the family farm has long been under threat in Britain. Measure like the Government’s latest tax proposal will contribute further to that decline. Why do I say that? Adding to the complexities and expense of family succession means that the next generation of farmers are likely to start their careers with even more debt than their parents.

Today’s family farming is a capital-intensive business. Just look at the price of a new milking machine or any of the latest farm machinery. If there’s a good business income, banks are more than happy to lend money. This then being secured against the assets of land and buildings. So, looking at the asset value alone says little about the viability of a farm business.

Let’s put the question – why have British family farms? Corporations and mega agri-business enterprises can satisfy all our food production needs. Cover the countryside with corporate logos and have done with this rustic tradition. Industrialise the countryside.

Honestly, I don’t think that’s what the British people want. It’s not just sentimentality. The sort of rural sentimentality that gets shown on Sunday evening broadcasts. It’s not just tradition for the sake of tradition.

Today’s family farming is excellent value. Given that we want British farmers to be, not only food producers, but custodians of the countryside, meeting societies environmental goals. That can be done more effectively by people who put their whole heart and soul into the job. There’s a commitment and dedication that comes from preserving the family line.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has outlined how the new Labour Government will raise money. In this case there’s a need to think again. I suggest that asset value of £1 million for taxation needs to be revisited and revised upward. I do hope the new Chancellor doesn’t want to be remembered as the one who kills-off family farming in Britain.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-reforms/summary-of-reforms-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief

Daily writing prompt
What’s something you believe everyone should know.
View all responses

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.” With the greatest respect to the author of these words, Douglas Adams*, this is the number one fact to learn and remember.

Everyone you know. Everyone you will ever know. Everyone who has ever been. Time is there. Now, I don’t want to get into the mathematics or physics. That’s not the point I want to make. What’s you should never forget is that the time we have is finite.

We can’t manufacture it. We can’t store it. We can’t buy it. That said, we do experience time in different ways, but the fact remains. Humans, like you and me, on this Earth, have a finite time to do something. Even doing nothing is to do something.

Why the illusion? That’s why I want to step away from the physics. What we experience of time is not linear. Moments drag. Days speed by. Where’s the sense in that? There is none.

My one point to register is that finite means finite. Whatever happens to time and you, use what you have to the best advantage. Even if that’s a long lunch.

Go see “Time and the Conways” if it plays in a theatre near you. Playwright J. B. Priestley loved experimenting with the effects of time and what we do with it.

*The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Budgets

You can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them. That’s budgets. Most of us budget even if we don’t write it down. I’ve got a certain amount in my bank account. If I spend more than is stamped at the end of my statement, then trouble may ensure. Not always given our modern dependency on credit. A problem arises only when spending gets out of control.

Mr Micawber cautioned about debt’s downside: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty-pound and six, result misery.” In his time, Charles Dickens was acutely aware of what unsustainable debt could do to people.

We’ve had weeks where the news media has created a landslide of content on a budget. The repetition of point scoring has got tedious. It’s way out of normal everyday human experience. I don’t know about you, but I can’t easily relate to a number like £1,226 billion[1]. Every year public expenditure totals numbers of that order. It happens. It’s real.

Today, our UK “billion” is a thousand million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by nine noughts. At one time in the past the UK “billion” meant a million million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by twelve noughts. That got dropped for the sake of international harmony.

I have used such numbers in lectures on aviation safety. To think, I often got people glazing over when I talked about ten to the minus nine per flight hour. That’s a billionth of something. A mighty small number. In these cases, a number denoting a probability of something happening.

So, here we are in October getting excited over a change of couple of hundredth of typical annual national expenditure. Not without reason. That figure sound like a small number, and it would be, if it wasn’t for the subject Dickens raises, namely debt.

Wisdom comes from learning from experience. Lessons learned are incredibly valuable. That’s not rocket science. Only we need to factor in how easily we forget bad experiences.

In terms of budgeting, recently two reckless politicians taught us a lot[2]. Truss and Kwarteng sound like a comedy double act or a dodgy back street lawyers office. Those two monster brains had the marvellous idea of borrowing more to give it away. In a short flash of genius what they did increased borrowing costs and spooked just about everyone.

Debt matters. Nation States are not like people, so the home economics analogies don’t stand up. However, borrow too much without being absolutely clear as to the answer for question like – who, what, where, when, why and how and the results are likely to be extremely unpleasant.

Let’s see if the day ends with a pint of beer being more expensive or not. Love them or hate them, budgets are not going away anytime soon.

[1] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/

[2] https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/truss-kwarteng-mini-budget-one-year