The BBC Verify unit used a Labour Party activist as an “independent tax expert” to back its analysis of Government figures on the farm tax, analysis that Keir Starmer then cited as proof he was correct. The Telegraph has the story.
The broadcaster’s fact-checking service quoted Dan Neidle as an “independent tax expert” in a piece assessing how many British farms would be affected by the inheritance tax raid.
Mr. Neidle, a retired City lawyer, made headlines last year when he pursued Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative Party Chairman at the time, over his tax affairs.
In a BBC Verify story on the corporation’s website, titled “How many farms will be affected by Budget tax rises?”, Mr. Neidle sided with the Treasury’s low estimate.
It said: “Dan Neidle, an independent tax expert, says the number of actual farms affected is likely to be below 500 per year.”
The Country Land and Business Association (CLBA) has produced a much higher figure, which Mr. Neidle dismissed on X as “hyperbolic fake stats”.
The BBC Verify piece has since been amended, with Mr. Neidle’s “below 500 per year” claim removed and his title amended to “founder of the independent Tax Policy Associates”.
It continues to dismiss the CLBA’s assertion that a total of 70,000 farms will be hit by the tax change as “not necessarily the right number to use”.
Worth reading in full.
It has further emerged that Labour carried out no impact assessment before launching its inheritance tax raid on farmers, casting further doubt on its claim that only 550 farms a year will be affected. The Telegraph has more.
The Chancellor’s failure to carry out a full review has cast doubt on the Government’s claim that only 550 farms a year will be hit by inheritance tax changes from 2026.
It comes amid a row over the policy, with Labour accused of underestimating how many landowners will be taxed, and Sir Keir Starmer’s own MPs calling for exemptions for family farms.
Rachel Reeves announced in her October Budget a £1 million cap on agricultural property relief, which allows farmers to pass farmland between generations without paying inheritance tax.
In her speech, Ms. Reeves said 72% of farms would be unaffected and the Government has since maintained that only 550 farms will be dragged into the inheritance tax net as a result.
However, a Treasury source told the Telegraph an official assessment would not be published until next year’s autumn Budget – six months before the tax takes effect.
Campaigners have said the introduction of such sweeping changes without a full review amounted to “negligence”, as thousands descended on Westminster on Tuesday to protest the new measures.
The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and the Country Land and Business Association estimate that 70,000 farms will be hit.
They point to figures published by the Government’s own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which suggest 34% of farms would be unaffected.
On Tuesday, Sir Keir claimed the BBC had backed him over the tax rises, prompting accusations of bias. Speaking at a press conference in Rio, where he is attending the G20 summit, the Prime Minister insisted that the “vast majority” of farmers would be unaffected.
He said: “All of you can check out what that means in terms of the impact. I think the BBC has already done it.”
Also worth reading in full.
As Clarkson says, “Since when was the BBC the mouthpiece of this infernal Government?”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Can’t help but think that there is an obvious difference between this charlatan Government data and the real life. For the first time in all the articles today, I have read that the Treasury data refers to farms per year but everyone else is talking about total number of farms affected. If a farmer inherits in his 30s and lives to his 80s, that is 50 years of churn, so 25,000 farms affected in Treasury data. Bearing in mind how out of date their records are about values and the massive hike in property values due to the theft of land for green projects, I can see how over the next 20 years we will see closer to the 70,000 farms being trapped by the tax. Yet again this Government is lying with data.
Another thing to consider is how slim the margins are in farming. I live in an area with a lot of farmers and chatting with them, they say that you make around £100 an acre a year. That’s after other costs like fertizer, etc. You can let the land out for about £65 an acre a year. The land costs about £11,000 an acre. So, to make the median income, a farmer has to have about £3,000,000 of land. And it’s hard work, farming. They could sell the land and get 3x as in dividends by putting their money in the FTSE100. They do it because they love the land and are stewards taking care of the land for the next generation. If Labour persists with this tax, within a generation or two, we will have all agribusiness and no family farms. And agribusiness doesn’t pay IHT.
Another thing to consider: if you pay 20% IHT on the land whilst you make 1% when farming it, then it will take 20 years of after tax profits to pay your IHT. Hopefully, before you kick it and pass the IHT burden on to your offspring…
Thieves desperately tried to justify her theft by saying the rate at which the state will steal a proportion of your assets on death was only 20% and unlike anyone else it can be paid in tax free instalments over 10 years as if farmers have spare cash to pay £40,000 a year for 10 years. The urban twat in charge of the environment in his Sugar Daddy supplied designer wellies really believes that the land belongs to the state which comes as no surprise.
Once people have got past basic arithmetic, the teaching of mathematics in schools should start with “how governments and others lie and mislead with statistics”. Absolute vs relative risk for example when talking about “covid deaths”.
“Since when was the BBC the mouthpiece of this infernal Government?”
It’s not exactly a surprise that the state broadcaster represents the views of the establishment. The state has no business operating a global media empire, regardless of how that empire is funded. Neither does the state have any business regulating, prescribing or proscribing content to be carried by other broadcasters via Ofcom or any other regulatory body.
The BBC certainly doesn’t represent the views of the majority of its licence payers or viewers.
I am sure they would be horrified if anyone thought they did.
I don’t think it’s realistic or desirable to force media organisations to “represent” anyone or anything except themselves, or to tell someone’s idea of the “truth”. If you don’t like it, switch over or switch off. Just don’t make people pay for it.
They could’ve asked a few hard questions in 2020 but no, not only that but to steal a quote from Mark Steyn, they were Pom-Pom girls for Big Pharma. All trust is lost.
Whatever trust I had in the BBC was lost during Brexit/Trump 2016.
See my post just now. Then you may understand what has really happened.
All taxes are somewhat arbitrary.
What is the fairest mechanism for collecting money from people to pay for state services? You probably don’t need all the taxes we currently have but you might need more than one. Sales tax seems like an obvious one – everyone buys stuff.
What I don’t think taxes should be used for is punishment, reward or nudging.
Nobody ‘forces’ the BBC to do anything.
The argument that you can switch off makes sense of course, but to many millions of loyal viewers the BBC is still the BBC of Lord Reith nearly 100 years ago. Plus that it (and other channels) are on constantly as the background in homes, shops, pubs etc.
The BBC is trading off its history and its own perception of itself as the kindly and knowledgeable friend in the corner of the living room. Which is why (only) the BBC refers to itself as ‘auntie’.
And as for switching channels, apart from the neutered and embattled GB news there is no earthly difference between them.
X and podcasts, independent video channels and particularly long form interviews are the future. Do yourself a favour and ditch the MSM
Well said.
The BBC is supposed to be “balanced” though we all know this is nonsense. My point was that any attempt to enforce “balance” is unlikely to work so there’s no use in trying, therefore we should simply not have a state broadcaster.
I watch some non-woke series on streaming channels and some old stuff, nothing else.
The lack of political choice is interesting – there is some choice in newspapers, though less than there was. Not sure why broadcast is so uniformly left wing. Even in the US which has a more right wing electorate than we do, there’s only Fox and possibly only by virtue of it being owned by Murdoch. The corporate world has gone to the left.
The BBC is there to tell us what to think
A much more important story:
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/11/former-cdc-head-says-covid-virus-origin-was-biodefense-research-maybe-in-north-carolina/
It’s just another day in an endless round of blockbuster stories that once would have occupied a news cycle and foreign affairs panels for days…
Exactly that LOL!
Oh, you mean it WASN’T a bat that went AWOL … flew 600 miles, landed in the Wuhan Market and coughed all over the stall holder?
Well I’m shocked ….
Even if it was around the 500 number, how can you say “only 500 farms” like they don’t matter. Death taxes are theft!
I’m not keen on IHT but either all taxes are theft or none are, depending on your point of view. Assuming you are OK with the concept of a “state” that provides services that are hard to make optional – anything non-excludable where a “pay as you go” approach doesn’t really work – then I think you are stuck with enforcing payment for those services via taxation. Whatever tax you come up with is probably going to affect some group or other disproportionately and is open to being used to punish, reward, nudge for political and/or ideological reasons – all of which rather gets away from the reasonable concept of a minimum level of taxation for a minimum level of service. I don’t know what the answer is but we surely have far too many taxes – quite deliberate I think, as it makes the overall tax burden less transparent and allows governments to abuse their position.
If someone puts aside £10,000 of tax paid income and after 50 years leaves £500,000 to a child, no way should that be taxed. If someone starts a business, pays their taxes on the profits of that business and leaves it to a child, no way should it be taxed. But, if someone bought a house in 1975 for £15,000, as my parents did and that house is now worth £350,000, as it would be, but the compound value growth due to inflation at say 5% is £164,000, I can’t see anything wrong in the government saying that there has been about £200,000 of untaxed income growth in that property and we would like some tax on it from the beneficiaries of the estate, especially if they cash out and don’t choose to live in it. Farm value growth is different to house value growth and should be passed on untaxed as with the business above.
Fair point. I think a distinction should be drawn between the value of the business and the value of the land. I think IHT should be abolished anyway, along with most other taxes.
You made my point…..IHT is a death tax and to me, immoral.
And it’s being used for business destruction, and careers, and life in general.
It’s not the property gaining value as much as the currency losing value.
Look at the amount of Gold it would take to buy the asset, and a better judgement can be made.
The price of Gold went from about £200 an ounce to more than £2000 in 30 odd years. That rate of inflation should be applied to current values and then the tax applied if one must, but IHT is nonsense anyway. It is taxing dead people because they cannot complain! Us live ones should very vigorously!
“No impact assessment before launching……” Where have we seen that before recently? A cynic might say that it has quite likely increased the demand for accountancy to minimise the risk. Perhaps there is no overall understanding of the financial structure of the businesses involved, given such a wide disparity across the various departments.
I heard yesterday on-line that someone said that the government has admitted that they muddled up acres and hectares, hence getting the number of farms affected wrong. If that is true that really highlights the need for minimum levels of academic qualifications and real life experience before you can hold a ministerial position or any senior civil servant position.
but, but, but, Rachel Reeves was an Economist at the Bank of England and then the Bank of Scotland… sort of like acres and hectares are the same… Economist and support staff are the same…
BBC Experts All Left Wing Activists
To answer Clarkson, the BBC was the mouthpiece of the government firstly during WWII and then again during the Scamdemic. It has remained the propaganda arm of government ever since, which is why many of us stopped watching its news programmes and people have stopped paying the licence fee in droves ever since.
I’m sure OFCOM will be investigating the Blatantly Biased Corporation for misrepresenting its “expert guest” and demonstrating both misinformation and clear political bias in its reporting.
How many farms are affected is a side issue.
This is an unjust tax and should not be levied.
And can you imagine having to sell your land or farm in what effectively is a fire-sale? How much would you get?
I have a question.
we know that the Covid shambles costs 400 billion. Why does the government not use this to explain their financial predicament? Or does that open the door to scrutiny?
It more than opens the door, it would lead to 650 or more serious fraud office investigations instantly! Of course the misuse of such an enormous of the population’s money with only negative effects on everything should be subject to proper scrutiny by the LAW not the useless public enquiry which has mas terms of reference from? You guessed it the Government who are under investigation!
BBC verify is a total sham. Nothing I have ever heard from them is remotely true, and the only verification is that the information meets the BBC agenda. Somehow this lying should be stopped, probably by legal action or shutting down the BBC. I used to work for them and the place and output is unrecognisable as the BBC which used to have status as THE broadcaster in the World.