Tag: news

UK Farmers’ Inheritance Tax Changes: What does the Government’ Christmas Announcement Really Mean for Food Security?

This morning, I was asked by someone who grew up in farming and knows what I do whether I thought the government’s announcement about changes to the farmers’ inheritance tax threshold and transfer allowance would be the end of it.

My immediate reply was that, given the Spring Budget or Statement date had been announced only the day before, the whole thing seemed suspicious to say the very least.

That’s before we even consider the timing: just before Christmas, and only days after the Batters Farming Profitably Review (FPR) was published.

As I suggested in my follow‑up blog, the FPR told many truths about the downward spiral that U.K. farming is now in, but it did so firmly within the context and framing that government and the wider establishment have set.

That’s only helpful if you believe that having the truth spelled out about the things killing an industry – and by default, UK food security – is the same as being heard. And that being heard – if you actually are – will lead to meaningful change rather than simply becoming more words added to the pile.

Whilst the news will bring some comfort to those who see the extension of the IHT window as a kind of Christmas gift, the regrettable truth is that even a complete U‑turn by the government on this single policy won’t change the direction of travel.

Nor will it alter the wide range of influences and pressures – many of which were identified in the FPR – that are tightening like a thumb screw and will ultimately destroy independent and traditional farming methods in this country.

The question, regrettably, given that everyone is still moving in the same direction, when you look at what their legs rather than what their lips are doing, is this: what will be the real cost of a story that grabs just enough attention to make people believe the farming and food‑security crisis is suddenly heading somewhere different?

Further Reading: Understanding the Context and Challenges Facing UK Farming

To help you dive deeper into the issues discussed in this blog – especially the government’s inheritance tax changes, the Batters Farming Profitably Review, and the broader crisis in UK food security – here’s a recommended list of Adam’s articles.

Each summary highlights the relevance of the link to the ongoing debate and the future of British farming.

1. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/19/a-few-thoughts-on-minette-batters-farming-profitability-review-fpr/

A critical analysis of the FPR, this post explores the truths revealed about the downward spiral in UK farming, while questioning whether simply acknowledging the problems will lead to meaningful change. It sets the stage for understanding the policy environment and the pressures facing farmers today.

2. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/08/14/farm-inheritance-tax-was-always-about-wrecking-independent-uk-food-production-thats-why-it-defies-common-sense/

This article delves into the history and intent behind farm inheritance tax, arguing that it has long undermined independent food production in the UK. It provides essential background for readers seeking to understand why inheritance tax remains such a contentious issue.

3. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/11/22/risk-and-responsibility-why-farmers-must-choose-to-rebuild-the-uk-food-system-before-its-too-late/

This post emphasises the urgency for farmers to take proactive steps in rebuilding the UK food system. It discusses the risks involved and the responsibilities that fall on those within the industry to drive change before the situation becomes irreversible.

4. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/11/23/understanding-who-controls-our-food-controls-our-future-everything-you-need-to-know/

An exploration of the power dynamics in UK food production, this article explains how control over food systems shapes the nation’s future. It’s a vital read for those interested in the intersection of policy, industry, and food security.

5. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/01/18/the-need-for-a-collaborative-approach-to-the-uk-farming-and-food-security-problem/

This piece advocates for collaboration among farmers, policymakers, and stakeholders to address the complex challenges facing UK farming and food security. It offers practical insights and solutions for building a more resilient system.

6. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/22/how-the-trail-hunting-ban-exposes-a-bigger-battle-for-britain/

Broadening the discussion, this article connects rural policy battles – like the trail hunting ban- to the larger struggle over Britain’s countryside, farming, and food systems. It provides context for understanding the wider political and cultural forces at play.

7. https://adamtugwell.blog/2025/12/18/adams-food-and-farming-portfolio-a-guide-to-books-blogs-and-solutions/

A comprehensive guide to further reading and resources, this portfolio is ideal for readers who want to explore more about UK farming, food security, and potential solutions.

UK Farmers IHT Changes PDF_Vers1_24Dec25Download

How the Trail Hunting Ban Exposes a Bigger Battle for Britain

Trying to unpick what looks like the sudden announcement that the government intends to ban trail hunting in the upcoming animal welfare strategy is far more complicated than it first appears.

The easy explanation is to fall back on the familiar left‑vs‑right framing – the tired them‑vs‑us narrative that has shaped the hunting debate for decades. But that framing has always obscured more than it has revealed.

Across the UK today, some will feel they have won and others will feel they have lost. Yet this moment isn’t new, nor is the opportunity to take a different path.

As I argued in my blog published on Christmas Day in 2017, the solutions that could have kept young people, rural voters, and the wider public onside have been hiding in plain sight for years.

Knowing people who hunt and people who don’t – and many who sit somewhere in between – I feel exactly as I did when I wrote that piece.

There was always a workable middle ground. The model we have today could have functioned well and kept most people broadly content, if only all sides had been willing to look beyond their own entrenched positions.

Instead of trying to rewrite the rules of the game or cling to the past as if personal belief were a universal right to impose on others, they could have chosen a bigger‑picture approach that protected both rural culture and public confidence.

But we live in a time when being “right” has become more important than being effective.

That mindset pushes people into emotional trenches, where the goal becomes defeating the other side rather than understanding what winning actually looks like in a changing world.

As the years have passed, since the ‘Hunting Ban’ came into force, the battle lines have hardened. Few have stopped to consider how easily self‑made traps can spring shut. And the hunting community, through its own shortcuts, diversions, and refusal to adapt, has handed the government the perfect excuse to act.

This is the same government that has already shown its willingness to undermine British rural life – the illogical Farm IHT rule being a prime example. Now, with trail hunting, they have been gifted a justification that many outside the community will accept without hesitation.

Many will still refuse to see what is happening. But when a government is openly delaying local elections, it is not unreasonable to expect they may attempt the same with the next general election if they can cling to power until 2029.

At the heart of this is a belief that everyone else is wrong and they alone are right.

If they succeed in pushing this change through before they lose power – assuming they haven’t already managed to entrench themselves further – the concern is that this will mark the true end of hunting as a living part of our culture and heritage.

Once an outright ban, or anything that functions as one, is in place, reversing it will be nowhere near the top of anyone’s agenda. Not with the scale of the political, economic, and social mess we have building up ahead.

Further Reading:

Young people and rural voters could all be kept happy with solutions to the Foxhunting debate that are already hiding in plain sight
Adam’s Food and Farming Portfolio: A Guide to Books, Blogs and Solutions
A Few Thoughts on Minette Batters’ Farming Profitability Review (FPR)
The Trail Hunting Ban Exposes a Bigger Battle for Britain PDF_Vers1_22Dec25Download

Minimum Wage, Maximum Exploitation: A Collapsing System Propped Up by Rising Taxes

Introduction

As the cost of living continues to climb across the United Kingdom, many households find themselves struggling to maintain even the most basic standards of financial independence.

With impending tax rises on the horizon, the pressure on those already living near the edge is set to intensify, pushing even greater numbers below the threshold of self-sufficiency.

This is not a temporary crisis, but a symptom of a deeper, systemic failure—a collapsing economic model that now survives only by extracting more from those who can afford it least.

The money-centric economic system that we have – The “Moneyocracy” – perpetuates itself by shifting the burden onto workers and taxpayers, while the promise of prosperity grows ever more distant for the majority.

Against this backdrop, it is essential to confront a fundamental question – one that exposes the uncomfortable realities at the heart of our economy.

A Question:

Do you believe the minimum wage is enough for a full-time worker to live on – and if so, why?

The answer to this question, which varies depending on one’s relationship with the minimum wage, reveals uncomfortable truths about the foundations of our economy and the way work is valued in this country.

What is not surprising is that those who already have financial security often agree in principle that low-paid workers should earn more. Yet when confronted with the implications of paying every worker enough to live independently, many recoil. Why? Because such a change would disrupt their own relationship with the economy.

The Minimum Wage Reality

Let us be clear: the national minimum wage in the UK is not enough for anyone working a full-time 40-hour week to live independently—free from reliance on benefits, charity, or debt.

The widespread acceptance of this wage stems from government and establishment narratives.

What is legally mandated is presented as morally and practically sufficient.

Yet, in truth, the minimum wage is a carefully placed rock covering a pit of myths and lies.

Those who benefit from the system prefer not to lift that rock, because doing so would expose their complicity in maintaining the illusion.

The Employee

A worker earning the minimum wage – currently £12.21 per hour, equating to £488.40 per week or £25,396.80 annually – cannot afford the basic essentials required for independent living.

The gap between what they earn and what they need is effectively the amount by which they are underpaid.

Employers exploit workers by failing to cover the true cost of living.

Regardless of how the deficit is filled—through benefits, charity, or debt—someone else is subsidising both the employee and the employer.

The Employer (Small Business)

Small business owners often insist they pay fairly because they comply with the law. Yet compliance does not equate to fairness.

Paying the legal minimum is not the same as paying enough for employees to live independently.

Common justifications include:

• “They can top up with benefits.”

• “I can’t pay more or I’ll go out of business.”

But these arguments miss the point. The government—and by extension, taxpayers—should not subsidise businesses that cannot afford to pay workers a living wage.

In reality, small businesses are also exploited: they cannot operate independently within the current economic system, because they too are constrained by models that undervalue their work.

The Employer (Big Business)

Large corporations differ because they can afford to pay more.

Supermarkets and other major employers of minimum-wage staff generate enormous profits – even during a cost-of-living crisis, like the one we are experiencing now.

They could easily pay wages that allow workers financial independence, if boards and shareholders accepted smaller returns.

Instead, big businesses exploit both employees and taxpayers. Workers are underpaid, while the government subsidises wages through benefits.

This allows corporations to maximise profits while keeping the mechanics of exploitation hidden from public debate.

The Government

Why does the government subsidise wages so small businesses can survive and big businesses can thrive? Why not simply set a minimum wage that reflects the true cost of living?

The answer is stark: doing so would collapse the system.

The economy functions by undervaluing the majority of jobs deemed “low-skilled” or of “little value.”

If wages reflected reality, the house of cards would fall.

The Taxpayer

The system is a con. The complex machinery of what can be called a Moneyocracy manipulates trust and deference so effectively that taxpayers rarely ask basic questions.

Why, in an economy where corporations make billions annually, must taxpayers top up their employees’ wages through taxes?

Why are we threatened with price hikes whenever government policy shifts, while corporate profits remain largely unscrutinised?

Following the money reveals the truth: wealth is funnelled in one direction, made possible only by exploiting workers, taxpayers, and weak governments.

Corporations profit by underpaying staff, then spin narratives that justify charging consumers more.

Reality Bites

Exploitation of normal people has gone too far. The system enriches the few by exploiting the many – sometimes multiple times over – so profits can grow while wages stagnate or reduce in real terms.

The Moneyocracy survives by perpetuating the myth that it is acceptable for many to grow poorer while a few grow disproportionately rich.

The promise dangled before workers – that if they play the game long enough, they too might “live the dream” – is false.

Humanity is destroying itself chasing a dream that continually recedes, because playing the game requires forgetting our true worth.

The basic equation of the Moneyocracy is simple: for some to be rich, most must be poor.

This is neither humane nor true.

The Alternative

There is another way. A system built on real values – where people, communities, and the environment come first – can replace the current money-centric model.

This alternative requires transparency, local systems, and a commitment to prioritising human worth over profit. Instead of hiding self-interest behind complex structures, society must embrace a model where business and life are conducted openly, sustainably, and with fairness at the core.

The choice is absolute: continue with a Moneyocracy that exploits us all or build a future centred on people.

Path Forward

The Local Economy & Governance System provides the foundational framework for a truly people‑centric future – one where People, Community, and Environment sit at the heart of every decision.

At its core lies a new benchmark: The Basic Living Standard, a guarantee that every individual receives a weekly wage sufficient to cover all essential needs.

This principle of equity and equality is not an optional add‑on, but the priority that guides every part of the system.

By shifting away from exploitation and toward fairness, transparency, and sustainability, this model offers a pathway to rebuild trust and resilience in our economic and social structures.

To explore how this vision can be realised and what it means for the future, please follow these links:

The Local Economy & Governance System | Online Text
The Basic Living Standard Explained
Minimum Wage Maximum Exploitation PDF_Vers1_25Nov25Download

Government is Broke(n): Collapse Now or Collapse Later?

Tuesday marked the rather strange pre-budget speech or open warning call from the Labour government, shouting all too loudly that Tax rises are inevitable and heading our way.

Whilst Farage attempted to get ahead of the game by making bold a bold statement on Monday about a future Reform government cutting spending on Welfare, and then Kemi Badenoch followed Reeves online with a speech that pretty much adds up to the same, the commonality between the positions of all these politicians will be missed by many for being remarkably similar, if indeed not the same.

Yes, you may ask yourself how exactly this could actually be. But the key element of one party raising Taxes whilst failing to cut spending, whilst others promise to cut spending whilst freezing or lowering taxes is fundamentally the same – because these approaches are all about saving the economic system and the economy that we have – and absolutely nothing to do with putting people and the lives of people first.

Few realise and even fewer understand that Reeves really isn’t the architect of the problem the U.K. (and the wider world) now faces.

That responsibly has been held and passed through many different hands over a period that exceeds decades of time, whilst a monetary and economic system has been introduced and then encouraged to take over every part of life and what we know as economy, with laws, regulation and even the legal system itself abused and manipulated to make money work in a way which suggests that its supply is endless.

Meanwhile, everything that has productive value to the U.K. and its economy has been destroyed, or outsourced, leaving almost nothing that can be used to sustain a sovereign nation behind. And now, even our ability to feed ourselves with our own farms on an accelerated pathway to being destroyed.

The growth that politicians obsess about has not been through any genuine notion or understanding of growth as everyday people and small business owners understand it but has instead been borne of the fear of people who should never have held the reins of power.

Politicians who fall over themselves to find, create and manipulate ways to ‘borrow’ more and more money in the form of the bonds that the government sells, which when funnelled into the right areas of public spending will multiply many times over as each pound changes hands between different business, with each transaction then meaning just the one pound is counted against GDP and ‘growth’, multiple times.

GDP then facilitates the accounting trick of all accounting tricks. Where public debt is never paid off but is cleverly reduced as a percentage of the ‘growing’ GDP balance, meaning that other than paying ‘interest’ on that ‘borrowing’, what is supposed to be a debt that gets smaller in relation to the U.K. productivity or GDP, should never actually need to be paid off at all.

What the politicians never understood – beyond agreeing to facilitate and legalise a system that basically made being in power as being as simple as a) doing what whoever pulls the strings tells you, and b) having to do nothing else other than save or spend, is the corrupt money and economic system that they have legitimised through deregulation and changes in all sorts of laws and rules, has legalised the theft of the business and infrastructure that once made the UK great, also enabled this Country to be able to pay its own way through the natural methods of productivity or what we might see as things like industry, which up until the Second World War were ours, and only ours.

Finding ways to create ‘growth’ has become progressively more desperate. Not just for Starmer, Reeves and co; but for every politician who has been anywhere near real power for a very long time. All as part of a process that dates back to at least 1971, when the FIAT money lie was properly embedded and the last remnants of the gold standard were left behind.

The same money and economic system that has been used to disproportionately enrich the few, whilst giving them the power to exploit and impoverish the masses, is also the reason why growing numbers of people can no longer afford to live. It’s why we have a minimum wage that doesn’t actually provide those who earn it anywhere near enough money to live independently and have lives which we would recognise as being their own.

As we now watch the welfare bill spiralling out of control – not because people don’t want to work – but because the system we have has pushed them and in many cases held them there – we are staring down the barrel of the gun that is the AI takeover, where many millions more jobs will be lost. Not because they need to be. But so those controlling this shit show can earn and profit even more.

The government is broke and broken. Raising taxes is the only way that they can service the forlorn hope that enough growth can be create that will turn on the taps of borrowed money once more, so that the real damage that is now bursting into open sight from decades of mismanagement and yes treachery can hopefully be hidden.

Then the politicians can resume taking their happy place in the limelight of the Westminster merry go round and the wheels of money myths will spin for another day and avoid hitting the ground of reality once more.

Unfortunately for us all, the reality that the U.K. has pretty much zero productivity left means that the money, cash, property and ownership we have of anything is the only potential saviour in terms of financial resources that out of their depth politicians actually have available to them.

If a new politician or political leads were able to take over today and face up to the situation and see and be honest about all of this for what it really is, they would recognise that the choice they have is to either embrace the collapse which has been inevitable from the moment that private interests took over money and the economy, or keep playing along – which means taxing and taking from everyone and everything, until everything collapses anyway, and nobody has anything left worth having – because the need to save their own skin and position dictated that there was simply no other way.

Overview

Key Messages Simplified

• The UK government is financially broken, and politicians are trapped between two bad options: accept collapse now or prolong it by taxing and impoverishing the public.

• Rachel Reeves’ pre-budget speech signals inevitable tax rises, driven by a £50bn shortfall and falling productivity.

• Other parties, like Reform UK and the Conservatives, offer economic strategies, whether through spending cuts or tax freezes, that are all variations of the same flawed approach: preserving the current economic system at the public’s expense.

Core Arguments

1. The Economic System Is Rigged

• Decades of deregulation and manipulation have created a monetary system that benefits the wealthy while hollowing out UK productivity.

• GDP growth is an illusion, inflated by repeated transactions rather than genuine value creation.

• Public debt is never truly repaid—it’s masked by GDP growth, allowing borrowing to continue indefinitely.

2. Political Consensus Protects the System, Not the People

• Whether politicians raise taxes or cut spending, they’re all trying to save the same broken system, not improve lives.

• Reeves, Farage, and Badenoch are functionally aligned, despite different rhetoric.

3. Collapse Is Inevitable Without Radical Change

• UK productivity has been destroyed, with industries outsourced and even UK agriculture now being undermined.

• AI-driven job losses will worsen inequality. Not because they’re necessary, but because they’re profitable for elites.

• The only remaining assets people and small businesses have —cash, property, and ownership—are now becoming the last financial lifelines for the government and politicians who simply shouldn’t have the power that they do.

Final Warning

• Politicians must either confront collapse honestly or continue taxing until everything collapses anyway.

• New leadership must be willing to reject the current system, rather than perpetuate it for personal or political survival.

The Contemporary Politicians Dilemma
Our Local Future | FULL TEXT
The Basic Living Standard Explained
How the UK was led into the fiscal-driven Armageddon we are now within
The harmful hidden meaning of ‘Growth’
Collapse Now or Collapse Later 5Nov25 PDF_Vers2_12Nov25Download

Why People Can’t Just “Get a Job”

This morning, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered her pre-budget statement ahead of the Autumn Budget, scheduled for 26th November.

Despite mounting welfare costs, Reeves offered no meaningful solutions — only strong hints that taxes will rise, paired with blame deflected onto everything and everyone except the government itself.

It’s no surprise, then, that Nigel Farage rushed out a bold announcement promising welfare cuts if Reform wins the next general election yesterday, while Tory leader Kemi Badenoch quickly followed Reeves with an online broadcast that, in substance, amounted to much the same.

As the government flounders, it seems poised to announce little of substance of savings on benefits or public services — yet millions already trapped in a financial vice not of their own making will see the cost of living rise again, working harder for ever-diminishing returns.

The Tories — who helped engineer the current crisis over their 14-year tenure up to summer 2024 — and Reform — now visibly undergoing their own establishmentisation makeover — aren’t offering help to people either. They’re offering help to the economy.

And that’s precisely where the problems began for those whose lives revolve around the benefits system today.

There are hard truths here. Truths that many untouched by poverty still find just a little too uncomfortable to believe.

There will always be people who are:

• Out of work for valid reasons

• Unable to work due to illness, disability, or caring responsibilities

But there are also many people who want to work and are able to work — yet still can’t. Why? Because:

• They can’t find jobs that match their experience

• They can’t find roles that fit their qualifications

• They simply don’t “fit” the mould employers are looking for

It’s easy to assume that anyone who wants a job can get one — any job, at any time. And it’s just as easy to judge those who don’t take “any job” as lazy, entitled, or abusing the benefits system.

But those who make these judgments often haven’t experienced what it’s like to be unemployed and dependent on state support.

The Reality of Benefits

Let’s be clear: basic benefits are not enough to live on.

We’re surrounded by comforting myths — stories we rarely question unless we’re forced to confront the truth. One of the most dangerous myths is that the National Minimum Wage is enough to live on independently.

Here’s the reality in November 2025:

• Universal Credit: Between £316.98 and £628.10 per month, depending on your circumstances

• Minimum Wage: £12.21/hour. For a 40-hour week, that’s about £2,116.40/month

• Actual cost of living: To live independently, a single person likely needs £16–£17/hour — around £2,773.33/month

That’s a shortfall of over £600/month, even for someone working full-time on minimum wage.

The Impossible Choice

Now imagine you’re unemployed, with no savings or support, and your only option is to claim £628.10/month. What do you do?

• Take a job that still doesn’t cover your basic needs?

• Or claim every benefit you can, just to survive?

For many, working full-time in a low-paid job — often under poor conditions and public judgment — while still needing benefits just doesn’t make sense.

The Myth of the “Benefits Culture”

The idea that claiming benefits is an easy ride is a myth. Genuine claimants are treated the same as those gaming the system. The rules are rigid, often making it harder — not easier — to find meaningful work.

Pushing people into low-paid jobs that still leave them reliant on benefits, food banks, or debt might reduce one type of welfare cost. But it could as easily increase the others — through the problems that an ill-considered attempt to push everyone into ‘work’ will create, like mental health issues, workplace burnout, and long-term poverty.

The AI Displacement Problem

A growing wave of joblessness is being driven not by lack of talent, but by the unnecessary and unchecked takeover of roles by artificial intelligence.

Skilled, experienced professionals — once vital to their industries — are being sidelined by automation that prioritizes cost-cutting over human value.

As more capable workers are pushed into the job queue, many will find themselves forced to claim benefits, not because they lack ability, but because the system no longer has space for them.

The Bigger Problem

Most people on benefits aren’t lazy — they’re surviving.

When life becomes a daily struggle, the benefits system can feel like the only option.

But simply cutting benefits without creating real alternatives — like jobs that pay enough to live on — risks pushing thousands into homelessness and crisis.

The Psychology of Work and Pay

Most people don’t need prestige — they need security.

If lower-paid or less challenging jobs guaranteed that workers could meet all their financial obligations and live with dignity, many would take them without hesitation.

The problem isn’t the work itself — it’s that the pay doesn’t match the cost of living.

When people know they can cover rent, bills, food, and essentials every month, they’re far more willing to contribute, even in roles that society undervalues.

What Needs to Change

We can’t fix the benefits system without fixing the economic system that creates the need for it.

If we want fewer people on benefits, we must:

• Build an economy where full-time work pays enough to live on — without top-ups

• Stop supporting a system that enriches a few by impoverishing the many.

Until the government legislates for a fairer system — one where the lowest-paid can live independently on a full day’s work — poverty will persist.

That’s where real change begins.

Did you know that Statistical Averages suggest we need to earn about £9.41 an hour net to live. But the real-world figure is probably £14+?
The Basic Living Standard Explained
Our Local Future | FULL TEXT
Why People Cant Just Get a Job PDF_Vers1_4Nov25Download