UK Politics Thread

Also - the link Nick provided says "persistently failing" managers will be dealt with. What the hell is the definition of "persistently" here. Presumably more than two? So you're gunna have to prove an exec is failing on more than two occasions. Good luck with that, when the execs have access to all of the stats at their Trusts which they can be ahead of should they need to present the data favourably... And lest we not forget, in an institution that famously fires next to nobody.

NHS League Tables seems like such a Tory idea.

Never heard of Pointy Haired Boss/Peter Principle.

This is amazingly, horrendously accurate: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PointyHairedBoss

If Trump actually does start massive tariffs on UK goods it might actually be the thing that enables Labour to go after some kind of closer alignment with the EU (be it the customs union, or rejoining or something similar).

They might have said they wouldn't, but Trump sticking 20% tariffs on UK goods would give them a pretty convincing excuse to change their position.

We performed our own negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, and came out so well that Canada withdrew from our rolled over deal because they want the same advantageous terms as the antipodeans.

Negotiations with the US will go along the lines of
"One NHS please."
"How high?"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/16/trump-adviser-says-uk-needs-free-enterprise-model-to-aid-us-trade-deal

I just laughed all the way through this article.

Yes.

It affects a tiny number of larger farms.

It's the top 1% trying to convince the bottom 80% that their interests are yours.

I read an article somewhere that implied it was mainly targeted at a recent trend of investors buying up agricultural land because it's recommended as a tax break. They then don't actually farm that land.

I forget the exact figures, but it mentioned something like over 50% of recent agricultural land purchases not actually for farming, so the amount of farmed land is going down.

If true, the NFU should be supporting this plan.

.. ah, here:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/17/keir-starmer-defends-inheritance-tax-change-amid-farmers-outrage

All you really need to know is that Sir James Dyson, one of the biggest cunts in the country, now owns 36k acres of farmland

Even those with land worth more, if they really care about the inheritance issues then the farms can be passed over to their kids well before it becomes an issue.

There was a lot of bitching about Brown increased NI contributions after running on a manifesto of no increased income tax. There was also a lot of bitching about some very technical tax reform on how pensions work behind the scenes, which nobody would have really noticed in reality but even to this day gets described as a "raid" on pensions. Also he sold "our" gold. So yeah this tax drama has form.

(He was wrong about NI not being considered an income tax imho, and he gets rightly pasted for that. I think Reeves would have not been unaware of that drama when she pulled her stealth version of that by upping employers NI)

Generally the same people that think everyone on benefits is fleecing them that think they shouldn't have to pay any tax.

It's largely projection "if I don't protect my own money I'm a mug and will get fucked over by everyone else" There's a deeply ingrained cultural thing here that needs addressing.

I understand Clarkson doesn't even hide the fact that he bought the land primarily as a tax dodge. The fact he has also likely made tens of millions off of the farm shop, pub and Amazon deal was just a nice side effect. I don't imagine him and his family will have too much difficulty paying for the still discounted inheritance tax fees (if they ever pay it, as it isn't like it is particularly hard to dodge most of it).

I read Dan's thread, and (as I often do) found it full of useful insight.

But have also seen this number used quite a bit to show how few it affects, and I think a lot of people just read this as the number of wealthy land owners who will pay - but it's the number of farms affected each year, so in reality it's quite a lot. Assuming a farm is held for a generation before being passed on, and that 21-22 was an average, then even at the low end of a 20year generation it's over 2000 farms affected (4x the 500 the govt has suggested).

I completely understand the desire to close a loophole - where wealthy people (like Clarkson/Dyson) have bought farms to try and avoid inheritance tax they should be paying - it shouldn't be allowed. 

And this protest is clearly being highjacked/encouraged by those mega-wealth land owners (and those trying to score points with Labour) who have done nothing to help farmers with supermarket pricing tactics, or Brexit, or shoddy deals with NZ (and possibly soon the US).

But there are a lot of farms which on paper are worth a lot, but in reality don't generate a lot of income. Land and property are valuable assets, but hill farming makes a pittance compared to industrial farming, and those farming responsibly and looking after the land make less than those abusing it for maximum profit.

There is a real worry that this will affect considerable numbers of farms which will have to be sold, and the only potential buyers with deep enough pockets to buy them will be conglomerates who already own huge tracts of land and are only in it for profit (at the cost of animal welfare or the environment).

Tim Farron has been very vocal about this. I'm sure there is a bit of political point scoring going on but having represented a rural constituency for nearly 20 years (and held positions on food and rural affairs), I'm also inclined to listen to his position with interest and there is more to this than simply greedy farmers hoarding wealth.