Oh yes a classic. Here it is from 2021.

Have you ever wondered what the collapse of the NHS would actually look like? It's in the small things - my latest Independent newsletter: link.e.independent.co.uk/view/60e48d536…link.e.independent.co.uk/view/60e48d5...ba

It’s a load of hysterics. 1/3 of farmers are tenant farmers anyway so irrelevant to them. And if the others genuinely want to pass the farm down with no IHT they can do so 7 years before death - in case they can’t predict that - they can take out some life insurance to cover tax - Job done.

This is not correct - see examples - www.gov.uk/government/n...

Took me 6 this morning as well!

I agree but the farmers need to pick their fights - farmers will still get preferential IHT support. If we were discussing the need for food prices to go up because the government was changing the subsidies that support cheap food then it’s a much better argument. That’s on the Conservatives.

Well unsurprisingly the politicians who said that they would continue subsidies for producing cheap food after brexit have gone back on their word (yes it was the Tories). Now that is what we should be debating and the farmers have a much better case and would get substantial support -including mine

I have read it and it makes a lot of sense - however the farmers are making a fuss about the wrong thing. The withdrawal of subsidies for producing cheap food post brexit hurts them much more than the IHT changes where they still get favourable treatment. The IHT rules has distorted land values.

The real issue is the withdrawal of farming subsidies post brexit in return for producing cheap food. Now if the farmers had focussed on that they would have had much more support rather than IHT where they still get treated generously.

*food*

The farmers are doing themselves little good by making such a fuss about the IHT where they are still treated very favourably. If they had focused on the withdrawal of subsidies which helps keep good prices down they would have much more support.

In fact, Clarkson & Dyson, by buying farmland themselves, have actually helped push up the price of farmland, which constitutes to higher Inheritance tax (& lower yields). Farmers should be lambasting Clarkson, not buying him a pint!

1/3 farmers are tenant farmers anyway so this is irrelevant to them. With a bit of IHT planning by the others the tax can be avoided anyway as long as they live 7 years if they truly want to pass onto next generation. There is an argument for a transitional allowance for 7 years but that’s it.

No even Bear fans don’t get that personal - they just think they have a better rugby team (they’re wrong! Well at least at the moment!). 😂

Careful - you sound nearly as cynical as I am (sometimes) 😂

Does anyone ever question how they arrive at these ‘costs’? £170m seems an extraordinary amount of money.

And Wes Streeting is not standing up to the Treasury over the latest employer NI increases which is going to destabilise most GP practices as well as care homes. Who will suffer most? Yes - the good old patient (taxpayer). Practices already looking at reduced teams/services and worse.

The 2019 Watson report on the problems and solutions of the partnership model provides some good background reading. It’s a shame the Government and NHSE disnt pay a bit more attention assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c3ca2...

Only when it suits the Government and NHSE. The recent NI changes and lack of support from Wes Streeting over this means we are already seeing practices deferring recruitment, cutting services, contemplating redundancies and in the worst cases considering handing back contracts.

Welcome - I am so with you on the sleep point….