The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.
Beyond my Westminster window, a sea of deep Barbour green swells as rural Britain descends on Downing Street for a much-publicised clash with the government. (Although Keir Starmer is out of office at the G20 today).
Nonetheless, the waves of wax jackets, tweeds, fleeces and flat caps are expected to grow this afternoon, with a reported 15,000 people registered to attend a rally at Richmond Terrace, near Downing Street. Separately, the National Farmers Union (NFU) had 1,800 members registered to lobby their local MPs in person at 9 am.
It comes after Labour’s budget announcement that there will be a 20 per cent inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million, a measure the president of the NFU has described as “horrific” and a “betrayal”. The Guardian has further detail, which is worth quoting in full:
MDU training professional one of first in country to receive membership award
BASC calls on Gloucestershire Constabulary to reverse “outrageous and unlawful” firearms licensing decision
Since 1992, agricultural property relief (APR) has meant family farms have been passed down tax-free in a policy intended to bolster food security and keep people on the land. This tax exemption was made because farming is often not a lucrative business, and the work is difficult, so people often do it simply because it is the family business. If farmers sell up, this affects food security. The UK now produces less than 60% of the food its inhabitants eat.
The budget changed this: from 6 April 2026, the full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1m of combined agricultural and business property. Above this amount, landowners will pay inheritance tax at a reduced rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%. This tax can be paid in instalments over 10 years interest free, rather than immediately, as with other types of inheritance tax.
But a broader explanation of farmers’ discontent pertains to the pointed politics that informed the autumn budget — the first delivered by a Labour chancellor in over 14 years. To govern is to choose, as the saying goes, and Rachel Reeves made a series of potent choices last month with vividly defined “winners” and “losers”.
At the budget, Labour sought to identify “a people” or “its people” — a perfectly proper, even indispensable, aspect of the politics of government. And within this tent (naturally narrower than Labour’s sweeping electoral coalition) farmers do not feature.
Rather, large farms have been identified as a revenue source from which the government can extract funding for public service investment. There is, without doubt, a light populist touch to the approach. But as I argued earlier this month: “perhaps a government needs to indulge in a little economic populism to thwart its far more menacing associate, political populism.”
In time, Labour hopes that by throwing in forcefully with “working people” the government can solidify its precarious electoral foundations. After all, the primary feature of Starmer’s electoral coalition is its breadth — following Labour’s advances across the Blue, Red, Tartan and Rural walls last parliament. But the party’s standing in each quarter is, nevertheless, “shallow”.
It followed that at least one panel of Labour’s electoral tapestry would be angered by the budget. And so it has come to pass. In fact, the budget’s big surprise was the intensity of Starmer’s focus on “working people” — at the expense, it turns out, of other groups.
And so farmers feel picked on. You can see why.
Given the “tractor tax” was informed by the budget’s central political rationale, any subsequent ewe-turn is unlikely indeed. But it seems farmers’ first straw is also their last, and the resultant fury — on show in Westminster today — marks a serious show of societal and political force.
The sudden backlash also reflects the psychological shift Labour’s budget rupture affected among farmers. Rural constituencies are generally Conservative fiefdoms — a fact built in to the last government’s economic agenda. “I’ve never been to a protest before”, one farmer told me this morning. The truth is, they haven’t needed to.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
That is not to say farmers lack political organisation or nous. The opposite is true. The NFU is a powerful lobby group. And the speed with which farmers have downed their pitchforks and picked up their, well, pitchforks points to a sharp collective instinct with which ministers must now reckon.
And the NFU’s institutional influence (it bussed farmers down to Westminster today) is matched only by the cultural brawn of former Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson. As Focaldata’s James Kanagasooriam noted last week: “[I] genuinely think that if Jeremy Clarkson entered politics now — it could be a moment. Britain’s Trump moment — but far more English and less authoritarian.”
Kanagasooriam adds: “[Clarkson] has reach, a massive TV show, part of the nations [sic] mental furniture. He has become the countryside’s most effective representative in decades. He’s far more heterodox than his opponents suggest. Winds up all the right people.”
Clarkson’s position at the head of the Farmers’ Revolt (2024) shows he is investing his cultural capital at Starmer’s political expense. The erstwhile Top Gear star is today accompanied by a production crew for his hit show Clarkson’s Farm.
Perhaps more pertinently, the inheritance tax issue has drawn a stark political divide between Labour and all of its political foes: the Conservative Party, Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are collectively opposed to the policy. Kemi Badenoch and Sir Ed Davey both delivered speeches outside Downing Street this afternoon. Nigel Farage is also holding court.
But there is the possibility that the manifest noisiness of Labour’s budget “villains” could, in time, become a signal of just how much the government has prioritised its “heroes”. The protest could emerge, in and of itself, as a signal of the “change” Starmer so sought to emphasise last month.
However, this only works if a critical mass of public opinion agrees that the budget “villains” are worthy of that designation. As such, More in Common’s Luke Tryl cautioned this morning: “It is true that using populist language on wealth can be a powerful public opinion motivator — the public do think the very rich exploit the system and ask about taxes and most are happy to see them going up on the rich. The problem is they don’t see farmers that way.”
Tryl adds: “Over 80% say they show respect for farmers — compared to only 25% who say politicians show respect for farmers. Overall 59% say farmers don’t get the respect they deserve only 5% say they get more than they deserve — being seen to attack farmers reinforces [a] sense of disrespect.”
The government picked its heroes and villains last month — and the villains are fighting back. Starmer vs the farmers represents a significant stress test for Labour’s budget, and the political rationale that informed it.
The big question is on what side popular opinion falls and how, or whether, Labour seeks to shape it. Even at this stage, Starmer could resolve that the budget speaks for itself. Given attacking farmers could galvanise popular sentiment behind them, the PM must hope it does.
Lunchtime briefing
‘Britain is going full Stalin’: Elon Musk’s war with UK government escalates after Trump appointment
Lunchtime soundbite
‘I beg of the government to be big — to accept this was rushed through, it wasn’t thought through and it was a mistake.’
— Jeremy Clarkson calls on the government to u-turn at the farmers’ protest in Westminster.
Now try this…
‘What are the inheritance tax changes affecting UK farmers?’
The Guardian reports.
‘UK expected to give Ukraine Storm Shadow missiles to strike inside Russia’
Via The Guardian.
‘How UK’s Labour channeled Donald Trump to win’
Politico’s Dan Bloom and Tim Ross write.
On this day in 2021:
Starmer refuses to say that Corbyn would have made a better PM than Boris Johnson
