Over the previous months, a simmering conflict in the English countryside has boiled over into an open feud between farmers and politicians, culminating in thousands of farmers rallying in London to protest policies they say threaten their livelihoods. The flashpoint issue was a proposed tax on inherited farmland, with the Government moving to levy inheritance tax at 20% on farms valued above £1 million, describing it as a modest measure affecting only the wealthiest estates. However, this row encapsulates a deeper rift between rural England and Westminster, as shrinking subsidies and thin margins have meant that this policy is seen as yet another potentially devastating blow to family-run farms.
The backdrop to this crisis has stemmed from years of mounting pressure, as following Brexit, the UK began replacing the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy subsidies with its own system, resulting in a bumpy transition and continued uncertainty for farmers. The Government had promised to keep farm support at roughly £2.4 billion a year, in line with the former EU level, yet significant funds have gone unspent, with over £300 million of the farm budget not paid out over the last three years. Compounding these issues, production costs have surged, with global inflationary pressures and global instability resulting in the prices for fuel, fertiliser and animal feed rising. This has understandably squeezed farm margins considerably, with figures showing that the average farm business income plunged by over 50% between 2023 and 2024, the lowest in nearly a decade. It is this freefall in profitability that has left many farmers effectively operating at break-even or worse, and is at the heart of their grievances towards the prospect of new taxes on farmland assets.
The fate of the agricultural sector is inextricably linked to that of the wider economy, with the financial squeeze on farms reverberating through the broader food supply chain and resulting in a spike in food prices rivalling the 1970s. Yet, many producers feel caught between surging costs and powerful supermarket buyers, with retailers’ relentless focus on low consumer prices leaving farmers underpaid for their goods. This comes at a time where food insecurity is still a real issue, as the UK produces roughly 60% of its own food, down from 78% in the 1980s, and is heavily import-reliant for fresh produce, leaving the nation vulnerable. An over-reliance on imports for staple goods can leave the UK exposed to external shocks, a lesson driven home by recent global supply chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine’s impact on food prices.
Unsurprisingly, the feasibility of dramatically renegotiating post-Brexit deals remains limited by diplomatic and economic realities. However, more tactical tweaks, such as leveraging safeguard provisions, doubling down on promoting British produce and coordinating with like-minded countries on production standards, could be the first step in rebuilding. Policymakers are increasingly framing trade in terms of resilience, as deals must not only pursue efficiency and consumer price benefits, but also ensure domestic farming capacity is maintained as a hedge against global volatility. Therefore, renegotiating terms to favour domestic producers could be a way to bolster the UK’s self-sufficiency in agriculture and give UK farmers a fair chance. There is also a global competitiveness angle, as UK farm exports could gain better access abroad if trade deals are negotiated with strategic focus on agriculture and by branding Britain as a source of premium, high-welfare produce.
The Government, for its part, insists it must balance farmers’ concerns with fiscal needs, environmental goals and trade obligations, arguing that a 20% inheritance tax on farm estates closes a loophole exploited by the ultra-wealthy and will raise funds for rural public services. However, for many family-run operations, farmland values are so high that many ordinary family farms, with extremely modest incomes, could own land easily exceeding £1 million and thus find themselves ensnared by the policy. The dilemma of being land rich but cash poor is now at the heart of their grievances, as heirs of family-run farms may be forced to sell land to meet tax bills, imperilling businesses passed down for generations. Consequently, the structure of UK farming might also be forced to change, with larger agricultural businesses likely to buy up land to benefit from scale in purchasing and production efficiency.
Ultimately, how this standoff ends will shape the future of British farming, and by extension the trajectory of the wider economy. A prolonged deadlock risks more farm closures and heavier reliance on imports, undermining the nation’s food resilience and leaving the agricultural sector exposed to global price swings with less subsidy support. Against this backdrop, many in the sector predict a patchwork compromise, with a higher inheritance-tax threshold for active farms, extended payment instalment plans or conditional exemptions if the inheritors continue farming. Yet, this issue is less about policy nuance and more about a reframing of the narrative around domestic production and the importance of supporting British industry.
The same tensions seen in agriculture are playing out across the economy, as domestic producers from advanced manufacturers to high-growth technology firms are having to contend with supply chain disruptions, labour shortages and the relentless pressure of international competition. The Government must decide whether to continue championing open markets at any cost, or to pivot towards a more strategic approach that ensures key British industries can compete on fairer terms. If policymakers fail to act, the risk is not just a further erosion of British farming but a more profound weakening of the UK’s economic base that could leave the country more exposed to global shocks and dependent on external suppliers for critical goods and services. Without a clearer vision for how domestic businesses can compete on fairer terms, policymakers risk not only driving family farms into extinction, but accelerating the decline of industries vital to Britain’s economic future.
Find Gabriel McKeown on Substack.
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.
Germany’s problem, of course, is that like a number of other Western countries it’s afflicted with a ruling group that has a profound death wish, a death wish which manifests itself as a profound yearning for national suicide. Since the only way to destroy the nations of the West is to destroy the peoples of West, it’s no coincidence that population replacement is now the fundamental project of the rulers of so many Western countries. And from this follows the laughable tripe that anyone who doesn’t go along with national suicide must be another Hitler. Which proves that our rulers have entered the berserk phase of their spiritual illness.
According to the theory of Cliodynamics the period between the end of the old elite and the start of the new elite is chaos. Now the various Western countries may not be in step with each other but you have to wonder if we are going through the period of ‘chaos’ before ‘populism’ produces a new elite.
Germany’s problem, like the rest of Continental Europe, is they have never had democracy in the sense the UK has had (until recently) as imperfect as it was. They have always had some sort of centralised, authoritarian regimes.
Germans have a tendency to like being told what to do.
The key to stoking a preference cascade is to “give permission” to people to think outside of an existing template. I don’t know how much notice Germans take of outsiders, but perhaps a genuine tech genius will have influence in a tech-focussed country such as Germany.
You are assuming the capacity for thinking at all… a rarity these days after 70 plus years of indoctrination via State education discouraging individual thought.
Yeah, for the woke illuminati anybody with an even slightly different opinion is a fascist. We are used to it.
You don’t think immigration is an unalloyed joy? You are just like Hitler.
You don’t think a man can turn into a woman just by declaring himself to be one? You are a nazi.
You think there might be reasons other than racism for certain ethnic groups to underachieve? You are a fascist.
You think the AfD might have a point about Islamic migrants being just a tiny bit more responsible for terrorist attacks than Buddhist monks? You are scum.
It’s OK, guys, we are used to it.
Actually Hitler was a huge fan of immigration – into Czechoslovakia, Poland, for example, sights set on Russia.
Of course in those days immigration (good) was called colonisation (bad).
The authoritarian left have lost their minds.
How do you lose something you never had?
So the editor of a paper’s opinion section resigned because it printed an opinion that they didn’t agree with?
Sounds like a case of dummy and pram to me, but no doubt they’ll claim it was their high moral standards.
If those on the Left weren’t accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being Far Right, or “literally” Hitler, and proclaiming they are protecting democracy, what would they have to say?
“… she said she had “always enjoyed heading the opinion department” at the newspaper.”
Correction:-
“… she said she had “always enjoyed heading the my opinion department” at the newspaper.”