Inheritance tax change 'immoral', Kemi Badenoch says
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has said that government changes to inheritance tax for farmers is "immoral".Speaking on a visit to a farm in Bangor, Co Down, she described the tax rise as a "family farms tax" and called for it to be reversed. In her autumn budget, the chancellor capped the Agricultural Property Relief at £1m, with anything over that being taxed at 20%, half the normal rate of inheritance tax.The government insists the majority of farms in Northern Ireland will be unaffected.
The change will be introduced from April 2026.The government is adamant that its policy will not change. Other reliefs may help reduce the amount owed, but concern remains high.Speaking from Fairview dairy farm near Bangor, the Conservative Party leader said: "We want farmers to know that we are with you, we understand."Taxing those assets to force farmers to often give up their land and their children or their grandchildren to not continue in this way of life, I believe, is immoral."We are doing everything we can to fight the family farms tax."
'No space for paramilitaries'
Badenoch also added that "every possible lever" should be used to remove paramilitary groups and "negative criminal activity from the communities who are suffering".In a joint move, London and Dublin are to appoint an independent expert to assess whether there is merit in beginning a process which could bring about the disbandment of paramilitary groups.It followed a recommendation from the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC) which was set up to monitor paramilitary activity.Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn has insisted paramilitaries will not be paid by the government to "disband".He defended the government's decision to explore the possibility of formal engagement with paramilitary groups.Badenoch said: "We looked at this proposal when we were in government."We didn't bring it forward because one of the things we must remember is there is no space for paramilitary organisations."We need to make sure that they are not benefitting from the harm they cause to communities all over Northern Ireland," she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Once again, British politicians want to ‘ban the burqa'. But this time, I've never felt so afraid
Here we are again, debating the right of Muslim women to wear what they want. Last week, the Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin asked the prime minister, Keir Starmer, if he planned to follow other European countries and prohibit burqas. Then the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, called for bosses to be able to ban the burqa in the workplace. Following the example of the former Labour minister Jack Straw, who in 2006 sparked the first burqa debate by asking constituents at his surgeries to remove their face coverings, she stated that she does not see constituents at her surgeries if they have their faces covered, 'whether it's a burqa or a balaclava'. These comments from politicians hoping to appease rightwing voters have real repercussions for the safety of Muslim women like me. Muslim women, especially those who wear coverings ranging from the headscarf known as the hijab to the full body and face covering known as the burqa, have become a symbol in UK politics of migration and integration. They – or perhaps the perceived oppressive men in their lives – are outsiders who refuse to live by British values. When politicians call to ban the burqa, they position themselves as defenders of a way of life under threat from outside forces. The timing of this cannot be ignored. Reform, which triumphed at the recent local elections, warns in its manifesto that 'unchecked migration has pushed Britain to breaking point'. The Conservatives, keen to claw back any defecting voters, have positioned themselves as equally tough on immigration and integration. When our national leaders parrot catchy soundbites such as 'ban the burqa', what they are really doing is normalising Islamophobia by making it part of mainstream political conversations. Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% in the week after Boris Johnson called veiled Muslim women 'letterboxes' in 2018. As a visibly Muslim woman, I have never felt as afraid as I do right now. Last summer's far-right riots targeting mosques and calling for Muslims to be taken off the streets are etched into my mind. I was born in this country, it's my home, yet I can't shake a feeling of unease. The irony of this debacle is not lost on me. Last time I checked, Britain prided itself in not being the sort of country that told women how to dress. States that do dictate women's clothing (see: Iran) are vilified as misogynistic and ultra-controlling: the antithesis of the enlightened, liberal west. Why, then, is it OK for the government or corporations in Britain to interfere with the autonomy of women who happen to be Muslim? Of course, some will say that face coverings are inherently misogynistic, and so banning them is about protecting Muslim women. But why should politicians get to decide what is oppressive and what isn't, without ever really consulting us? It is disingenuous to pretend that Muslim women are uniquely prone to victimhood. Can we truthfully say anything about the way women are expected to live our lives isn't rooted in patriarchy? Whether it's the bikini or the push-up bra, miniskirts or high heels, as women we are conditioned to shape our identity under the watchful eye of the male gaze. But I'm sure you've heard all of this before, because yet again, here we are: Muslim women defending their right to choose how they exist in British society. What is really being obscured are more pressing issues: inequality, a lack of affordable housing, crumbling public services, a struggling NHS. This was as true in the early 2000s as it is now. Nadeine Asbali is a secondary school teacher in London and the author of Veiled Threat: On Being Visibly Muslim in Britain
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
The Tories must do more than apologise for Liz Truss
Photograph by Henry Nicholls - Pool/Getty Images. Better late than never, and better something than nothing. The Conservative Party should have distanced itself from Liz Truss at the first opportunity – emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. On the steps of Downing Street on 25 October 2022, as his first act as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak should have condemned the mini-Budget, apologised to the nation and made it clear that Truss would never be a Conservative parliamentary candidate again. It would have been a justified response to the chaos of the preceding few weeks and a signal that the party had changed. It did not happen. Sunak acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but left it at that. He was too cautious about splitting his party. The membership had voted for Truss (he should have announced his intention to remove their rights to elect the leader, too) and a large minority of the parliamentary party had backed her. It would have been a bold gamble, and the case for such a move becomes more persuasive when one knows for certain of the electoral obliteration that lies ahead. Maybe we should not be too harsh on the last Conservative prime minister but we do now know how the infamous mini-Budget was brought up at every opportunity in last year's general election, and is continually referenced by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. This is not just out of habit but will be a consequence of extensive polling research. The public remain furious at the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed. Mortgage-holders, in particular, will not be quick to forgive. The Tories can survive many accusations, and still win elections. But they cannot win while being perceived as economically reckless. Not only is it a political vulnerability, but the Truss experience prevents them from delivering effective criticism of their opponents. At a time when Nigel Farage is advocating turning on the spending taps while also implementing massive tax cuts, the Conservatives are right to say he is being fiscally irresponsible. But when they say he is 'Liz Truss on steroids', it sounds amiss coming from Truss's party (especially when the line is delivered by those who served her loyally). And if the fears that the bond market vigilantes will turn against the UK come to pass, the Tory attack on Labour will also lack real punch. These factors resulted in the most substantial criticism of the mini-Budget from the Conservative frontbench. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride acknowledged that it had damaged the Tories' economic credibility, and that the party should show contrition. Stride – a reassuring figure who was critical of the mini-Budget at the time – was right to do so, but even then there was too much equivocation. Despite the advance briefing, there was no explicit apology. The language was characteristically measured and thoughtful, but what was needed was something a little more eye-catching and memorable. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Better still, the sentiments should have been expressed by the party leader, not the shadow chancellor. But when Kemi Badenoch was asked subsequently about the mini-Budget, she equivocated. She started to make the argument that the problem was the higher spending on energy support announced on 8 September, not the unfunded tax cuts set out on 23 September (she should check the dates of the market turmoil) and stated that she 'did not want to be commenting on previous prime ministers'. The strategy of distancing the Tory Party from Truss had been watered down after just a day. It is not good enough. Having left any serious criticisms for too long (31 months too long), this is no time for half measures. If the Conservatives want the right to be heard again by those voters who prioritise economic stability, they need to do this properly. Emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. That means not just taking on Truss, but the thinking behind the mini-Budget. Contrary to the arguments made by the Trussites, tax cuts generally do not pay for themselves. Fiscal responsibility should come before tax cuts. Independent institutions such as the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are not to blame for our economic difficulties. The events of autumn 2022 were not the result of a conspiracy but incompetence. The leadership of the Conservative Party should be making and winning those arguments now. This means that it will be impossible to offer unfunded tax cuts at the next general election as part of a retail offer, but that is the price that must be paid to recover economic credibility. While they are at it, there are other aspects of the party's recent history that should be addressed. The Conservatives were deeply damaged by the partygate scandal and the impression that the rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to them. According to a parliamentary committee on which there was a Tory majority, Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons about this matter and a 90-day suspension from the Commons would have been recommended had he not resigned as an MP. If the Tories want a reputation for economic competence and integrity (and that should not be too much to ask), they should make it clear that both Johnson's and Truss's days as Conservative parliamentary candidates are over. When distancing themselves from those aspects of their past that alienate the voters they need, what is required from the Tories are confident strides, not small, tentative steps. They have at least made a start, but it would be a grave mistake to think that the job is done. Related
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp and Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch (Ben Whitley/PA) While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
