Editor’s View: Food security platitudes set for severe test
© MAG/Farmers Weekly You know we are in a remarkable era when commentators keep reaching back as far back as the time of Napoleon for parallels.
Economists say the UK is in the longest period of sluggish growth since the early 1800s, while military analysts warn our armed forces have the fewest personnel since that era.
And with all the recent talk of taxation, rearmament and financial black holes, it’s worth remembering that income tax was first introduced then, too.
See also: Half of UK farms face closure from IHT hike, survey finds
About the author
The prime minister of that era, Pitt the Younger, who ushered it in 1799 to help pay for war on revolutionary France, had already tried inheritance tax (IHT) and found it insufficient to fill the Treasury’s coffers.
All that was a long time ago, but Westminster is a place where the hand of history is always felt.
Protesting farmers filed past the entrance to Downing Street again this week, where Pitt worked, and turned in Trafalgar Square, the great monument to that era, and down past the Ministry of Defence, which must be a hive of activity at the moment.
Then they paused in the shadow of Parliament itself, where MPs will debate what additional sacrifices will be required from the taxpayer for rearmament.
Accelerating defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 has been paid for by raiding the international aid budget, but some analysts are already saying that the additional £6bn a year will prove inadequate.
Do the geopolitical events of recent weeks make the prospect of the government relenting on IHT and other anti-farmer measures in the Budget more or less likely?
Worst-case scenario
Let’s start with a worst-case scenario.
If the prime minister feels compelled in time to break his manifesto pledge on not increasing taxes on working people (income tax, national insurance and VAT) to cover yet higher military spending, I think that would kill hopes for them relenting on IHT stone dead.
Even though the cause would remain just, it would be incredibly hard to argue for mitigation for farmers if everyone was asked to pay more at a time of national crisis.
Others hold out hope that a sharper focus on national security, and Labour’s manifesto pledge that food security was a component of that, may give rise to a rethink.
Politicians must not forget their words about farming’s importance to the security of the nation in an increasingly uncertain world
NFU president Tom Bradshaw’s remarks to the crowd at the rally on Tuesday (4 March) included a warning to government about the investment already being put on hold by farmers as they take stock of how to plan for the tax’s devastating impact.
Surely it makes the cross-industry proposal for a clawback mechanism, which forecasts raising a similar amount for the exchequer while mitigating the need for businesses to be broken up, more attractive by the day.
It was also prime minister Pitt that threw his support behind the Board of Agriculture – the first ever government-backed society to promote agricultural improvement – at the outbreak of war with the French.
With farm workloads picking up, we’re likely to be heading into a protest lull for some months, but pressure can still be maintained through local engagement.
Politicians must not forget their words about farming’s importance to the security of the nation in an increasingly uncertain world. Pitt could see it, and so should they.