Farm tax is risk to UK food security, says former foreign secretary
Braintree MP Mr Cleverly spoke after farmers parked two vintage tractors outside the National Liberal Club on Tuesday as part of a protest by Save British Farming against the tax changes.
I do worry that this Government is really blase about food and farming, because it cannot envisage a circumstance where there is even a moderate disruption of UK accessibility to core foods James Cleverly
'I do worry that this Government is really blase about food and farming, because it cannot envisage a circumstance where there is even a moderate disruption of UK accessibility to core foods, particularly carbohydrates,' Mr Cleverly said.
'If they're right, well, I'm not sure I still agree with driving farms out of business. If they're wrong, the stakes are so high it is unconscionable.'
The UK is facing 'serious risks' to its food security as a result of long-term declines in the natural environment and worsening climate change, according to the latest three-yearly government report on the matter published in December.
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) report also noted how geopolitical tensions have impacted the country, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine leaving the UK facing the highest food inflation in the G7, although 'sustained' food item shortages were avoided.
Farmers have argued that Rachel Reeves' inheritance tax hike on agricultural properties worth more than £1 million would undermine national food security in a critical moment.
Speaking to reporters, Mr Cleverly argued policymakers should treat agriculture with the same respect as they do the automotive industry and technology companies and called the Chancellor's measures 'one of the most stupid and counterproductive proposals I have ever seen'.
People take part in a Save British Farming protest in London (Eric Williams/PA)
'One of the problems we've had for a number of decades is we've stopped being scared about things that we should be scared of.
'Because we haven't had food shortages in the UK in living memory, we've kind of convinced ourselves that that can never happen.
'I don't think it will happen. I don't think it's necessarily likely to happen, but it's not something that is helpful to think of as being impossible.
'We had a nasty food inflation spike when Ukrainian grain exports were disrupted, even temporarily.'
Mr Cleverly warned in such a scenario, 'voters will go hungry, and then they'll get angry, and then they will turn on the government'.
He added: 'It will be politically catastrophic for the Labour Party. That's the kind of thing that gets you kicked out of government, not just for one or two political cycles, but potentially permanently.
'The biggest falls come after the biggest victories,' he said, noting how the Conservative's major losses last year followed the successes the party had in 2019.
A Defra spokesperson said: 'Our commitment to farmers remains steadfast.
'This Government are investing £5 billion into farming, the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country's history.
'Our reform to Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs will mean three quarters of estates will continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter will pay half the inheritance tax that most people pay, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free. This is a fair and balanced approach which helps fix the public services we all rely on.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
16 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Phillipson: Teachers cannot insist on gender-neutral Mx title
Bridget Phillipson said schools have a responsibility to make sure teachers are treated with respect, but also that people 'with a range of viewpoints' on transgender issues are also treated with respect. Ms Phillipson was pressed further on Thursday on comments she made earlier this week about the right of teachers to make such a request. The Telegraph reported recently that a primary school in the south-east of England had listed a new teacher, who the newspaper said was male according to their biological sex, as Mx in a list of staff members. Mx is described as a gender-neutral title for those who do not identify as being of a particular gender or do not wish to be identified by gender. Speaking on Times Radio, Ms Phillipson said: 'A teacher can, of course, make that request, but you can't insist that it's followed.' Asked whether she would call someone Mx, Ms Phillipson said: 'I think that's a hypothetical situation. I've never been asked to do that. 'As a matter of principle, on a wider point, I would usually seek to respond to someone in a way that they would prefer, but there is no obligation for people to do that.' Asked by Nick Ferrari on LBC whether the issue will cause confusion, she said: 'Schools, as employers, have responsibilities for managing this, in that they have a responsibility to ensure that staff are treated with respect, but also that people with a range of viewpoints are also able to express their views and are treated with respect as well.' Ms Phillipson also said she 'can't put a timescale' on when long-awaited guidance for schools on gender-questioning children will be published. The Government has previously said it will not be hurried into publishing guidance for schools, amid calls which came after the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman in April. Draft guidance for schools and colleges on how best to support pupils has been on hold since Labour entered Government. It was published by the Conservative government in December 2023, and a consultation ended in March last year. On Thursday Ms Phillipson, who has previously said guidance would be issued later this year, said the priority is getting the guidance right. She told LBC: 'I think it's more important that we get it right than we rush it, because these are serious and quite sensitive issues about children and young people and their wellbeing. 'I do know that schools are asking for guidance. 'We want to make sure they've got that guidance, but what matters most is that the guidance they get is workable and they find it practical and helpful in responding to what can be quite challenging issues for schools, when they're supporting young people who might be experiencing questions around distress or their wellbeing.'
Spectator
16 minutes ago
- Spectator
What will happen in Alaska?
The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska could be the flop of the century or turn out to be the first step towards negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and eventually an end to the war. The White House has been trying to downgrade expectations of any breakthrough and has described the meeting on Friday as an opportunity for President Trump to listen to President Putin's pitch and assess whether the Russian leader actually wants peace or not. Trump says he will be able to do this within two minutes. While it might be sensible to lower expectations, always a favourite ploy of political leaders, the Anchorage summit might just be different. First of all, Putin asked for it, and secondly, he has hanging over his head Trump's threats to ratchet up economic sanctions. If Putin plans to pursue his war in Ukraine and, possibly, have other military adventures in the future, he can ill afford Russia's economy to worsen. The key to the summit will be whether Putin shows even a hint of compromise. If Putin starts the session with a drawn-out monologue about how the war can never come to an end without the 'root causes' being accepted and respected by Trump – principally Nato's open-door policy which allowed Ukraine to be considered as a future member of the alliance – then the talks may never get off the ground. However, Putin has learned much from his relatively long association with Trump. He knows Trump is sceptical of Ukraine ever joining Nato, and he will be hopeful that he can get that in writing, something which America's western alliance partners will be desperate to prevent. The alternative, at this stage no doubt unacceptable in Moscow, would be a cleverly-framed security guarantee agreement in which Ukraine would have US and European military backing to deter Moscow from launching any future invasion of Ukraine. It would be a sort of Nato-lite arrangement. If that were to happen, then Kyiv might be persuaded to give up some of the Russian-occupied territory in eastern and southern Ukraine (as well as Crimea). At the moment, President Zelensky and nearly all European leaders are adamantly opposed to any land-swap. The wily Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump supporter and a veteran international security affairs protagonist, said in an NBC News interview at the weekend that land exchanges would only happen 'after you have security guarantees to Ukraine to prevent Russia from doing this again.' 'You need to tell Putin what happens if he does it a third time,' Graham said, referencing Russia's annexing of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, 2022. One bizarre option for the occupied territories supposedly discussed by Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, is to convert them into Moscow-governed regions without Kyiv having to concede sovereignty. According to a report in the Times, it would be a formula similar in style and structure to the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, which is occupied by Israeli troops. The idea would be to get round Ukraine's constitution which disallows any ceding of territory unless approved by a national referendum. The White House gave the idea short shrift. So who will have the upper hand at the Friday summit to be held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, 11 miles north-east of Anchorage and 4,500 miles from Moscow? Despite being a self-professed dealmaker, Trump will be at a disadvantage. He has already indicated that any peace deal is bound to involve Moscow holding on to some of the territory it is currently occupying. Crimea is a given in his mind and key parts of Donbas, consisting of the eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, are also likely to be prominent in his land-swap blueprint. But he has President Zelensky and European allies ranged against him. Zelensky refuses to consider any handover of territory occupied by Russian invaders and he, and Europe, say concessions of this nature would be an invitation to Putin to plot further aggression in the future. This argument will have been underlined during the video conference yesterday between Trump, Zelensky and key European leaders, including Keir Starmer. Trump knows all the arguments. He has heard them over and over again. But he seems to feel that Putin is ready for a deal of some sort, and he wants to exploit that to find a way of avoiding all the fears emanating from Kyiv and European capitals. Trump does have cards of his own. If Putin declines a ceasefire, Trump has serious sanctions at- the-ready, including penalising all countries still buying cheap Russian oil. He can also tell Putin that if he rejects all attempts to stop the bombing of Ukrainian cities, the US will start delivering to Kyiv on a large scale the sort of long-range weapons which can put military targets inside Russia at much greater risk. Putin doesn't have everything going his way. The battlefield landscape has changed in his favour, but not dramatically so. For example, Russian troops are trying to encircle and overcome Pokrovsk, a strategic city northwest of Donetsk which is vital for Ukrainian military resupply logistics. Although Russian forces have made tactical advances, they have failed to follow through with any significant success. This has been the story of the war in eastern Ukraine. Putin would have wanted a victory on the battlefield in this region to provide him with leverage at the Alaska summit. But Ukrainian temerity and the exploitation of advanced drone warfare have stymied the Russians. For the summit in Alaska to be deemed successful, much will obviously depend on the personal relationship between Trump and Putin. Trump seemed genuinely angry after he spoke on the phone to the Russian leader in early July only for Russia to launch 550 drones and missiles in one of the largest attacks on Ukraine. This is why Zelensky has emphasised repeatedly that Putin must agree to a ceasefire before any serious peace negotiations can begin. After Putin's previous blatant rejection of Trump's phone-call peace efforts, the US President will surely demand new ground rules when they sit down together at the military base near Anchorage. Ceasefire first, and then a framework for peace, with Zelensky invited as a co-participant.
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Can the UK still claim to be the fastest-growing G7 economy?
Half-full or half-empty? These latest UK gross domestic product (GDP) figures bring alive the classic metaphor about what exactly is in the reality is that growth of 0.3% in the spring quarter between April and June is a slowing from the start of the year's 0.7% at the same time, the news is positive because the economy had been expected to almost stop growing entirely, based on volatile monthly figures that had already been released. The data for June was much better, which is encouraging, while the bad figure for April - initially showing a 0.3% fall - was revised up to gauge contents of the proverbial glass, pick a latest monthly figure is good, well above expectations, driven by the service latest quarterly data show the economy growing, but the first half of the year, there has been solid growth overall during a fraught time, that exceeds that of other major initial response to the data was that the chancellor and prime minister would now have to retire the "fastest growing G7 economy" line, because it was no longer appears it will be true across the first half of the year, pending final data from this shifts the goalposts a bit, it can be of the criticisms of the G7 boast in the first quarter was that the 0.7% number was flattered by a shift of exports to the US to earlier in the year to avoid potential tariffs as well as housing transactions to reflect stamp duty the January-to-March and April-to-June figures does iron-out some of those one-off both periods shows 1% growth which is more than the rest of the advanced economies. During a period of totally unprecedented global trade uncertainty, a possible oil shock, tax rises and wobbly policy u-turns, that's solid certainly isn't consistent with the recessionary vibes given off in some quarters, which were given oxygen from the bad April GDP figure. The problem is that the doom-mongering - some of it which can be traced back to Downing Street rhetoric from a year ago - could become confidence has not been restored yet. There is a constant cycle of expectations of tax rises that do not help. The result is that UK consumers are saving a double-digit percentage of their income, which is basically pandemic level of post-inflation incomes are yet to translate into a feel good factor and trouble with taxes, worker-costs and job creation for the retail and hospitality industry is clearly very are very visible parts of the economy, and were disproportionately hit by the government's policies so far, and have rolled back their opening of job opportunities, especially for younger these sectors are not the whole economy and June figures showed, for example, the IT industry doing latest quarter would also have been hit by a dramatic fall in car exports to the US which will recover in the coming months after the signing of the UK-US trade trade terms with the European Union and India should also growth, albeit slow, is expected in the next few months. So while it is not particularly fast, the recessionary vibes are off the mark question is now from this point, do consumers and businesses start to act more confidently with spending and investment?That is still up for grabs.
