Farmers protests

[Geoff Parkstone]

No. It's not debatable that real farmers are being stitched up. No question some will be, but it's not going to be as widespread as popular opinion would suggest

[ramAnag]

No. It's not debatable that real farmers are being stitched up. No question some will be, but it's not going to be as widespread as popular opinion would suggest

Although you did write, only last Tuesday, ‘So the changes will only impact some farmers, predominantly those land owning businesses and only where succession is involved.’

In every issue, most topically the WFA, assisted dying and now farm inheritance tax, there will be folk who fall between two stools. I accept that completely, but it doesn’t suggest to me that the policy is wrong, just the importance of fine tuning which won’t apply to mega wealthy land grabbers.

[Geoff Parkstone]

The devil is in the detail

[swaledale]

They used to be but that's now been ditched.

It was a drain on resources!

[swaledale]

"The price comes down! I often cringe when the media talk about a bad harvest in terms of volume. yes yields may be down, but guess what supply shortages means prices rise. Often the same "profit" will be gained room less produced."

The flaw in your argument is that in particular commodity crops such as wheat rape barley are now global markets. In the 60's yield down price up logic was valid. Now if your UK yield goes down it doesn't mean price goes up if weather has lead to big harvests in US Midwest, Australia or (historically) Ukraine. Look at the impact of the Russian invasion on wheat prices as an example - they shot up, but so did fertiliser prices.

Secondly commodity prices are subject to futures markets and speculation by investors with no physical product and so price is no longer a function of simple yield. Farmers are not experts in futures trading or hedging - although they have had to try to become so or face the consequences.

Ah well yes, to an extent your correct and the cost of inputs recently has indeed rocketed, but then one would think that the end result would be less crops grown or animals produced, in fact I'm somewhat surprised that hasn't happened to a large extent, I mean if its impossible or very difficult to make a good living farming, then why do it? Many other industries that used to employ many thousands more people than agriculture ever did, have fallen by the wayside for various reasons, why should farmers be a special case?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Erm, have you ever tried eating a Typhoon fighter jet (other UK manufactured products are available, but not many)

[SithHappens]

Erm, have you ever tried eating a Typhoon fighter jet (other UK manufactured products are available, but not many)

I did, but I found it a bit too plane for my liking.

[Trickytreesreds]

I did, but I found it a bit too plane for my liking.

I had the chilli version. It had an afterburner

[Andy_Faber]

An interesting spin on things I heard over the weekend in the company of a bunch of tweed'n'wellie wearers, some clearly very well-heeled, and a couple are actually thinking of BUYING farms now that R-R has made her play, and planning for the IHT hit on succession. Their opinion is that the tax only hits 'real' farmers, those for whom working the land is 'in the blood', and will actually encourage more of those with a less caring, more clinical slant on things (and a few mil to burn) to avail themselves of what are still after all reasonable tax breaks. I've not had chance to consider if this was just un-thought-through bravado on their part but if so I'm not sure it is the outcome RR wanted