Loudmouth media types are the last people farmers should fraternise with

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I am a rural voter, and nobody could represent me less than Jeremy Clarkson, whose views I find obnoxious (“The last thing the farmers needed was Clarkson and Farage in cosplay”, Tuesday 19 November).

Neither Clarkson nor his fellow enthusiasts represent the countryside, although they claim to do so.

The farmers protesting in Westminster against the “tractor tax” should be careful with whom they fraternise, or allow to speak on their behalf. If they think loudmouth media personalities endear them to the people, both rural and urban, they could not be more wrong.

Penny Little

Great Haseley, Oxfordshire

A small change that would mean the world to us

As a family farming partnership, we are managing ok, thank you to the many who are concerned (“‘It’s become so tough I’m looking for a second job’: Inside the farming crisis” - Tuesday 19 November).

We aren’t badly off. Our vehicles are not Range Rovers, but modest cars we’ve had since 2007. We live, not out of choice, in a large, cold, draughty farmhouse, where we only heat one room and have one working shower. No problem. We will sort out the shower situation when there’s time – but it’s already been years in the waiting.

With that in mind, can anyone tell us how a 1,000-acre farm that earns £130 an acre a year – on which we work hard and pay income tax, of course – also pay an inheritance tax bill of £200 an acre, each year, for 10 years?

There are ways the government could tweak this to make a difference. Attach the inheritance tax liability to the land, and it only becomes payable if the land is sold by the family.

But please allow generations of stalwarts to continue producing homegrown food while caring for the environment – the kind of farming that benefits the country.

Anonymous

Address supplied

Million-pound assets offering tiny returns

The thesis of your recent editorial (“Rachel Reeves’s flawed inheritance tax for farmers demands a rethink”, Sunday 17 November), regarding the number of farms likely to be affected by proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, appears to be that the government “stats-based” assurances are incorrect; that “the figures are disputed”; and that “there is evidence to the contrary”.

If people are going to rubbish government figures in order to justify their position on this issue, they really need to provide some proper evidence and analysis.

It seems to me that the real puzzle in giving farmers such privileged tax status is why do farm assets produce such a huge price/earnings ratio?

How can a multi-million pound asset deliver a return of just a few percent? Surely an asset providing such a low return must be over-valued. Or if the value is correct, then the asset has not been properly exploited.

If the argument is that the food production is special and the system prevents farms earning a normal return on investment, then the system is broken and must be fixed.

Ian Quayle

Fownhope, Herefordshire

Means-testing to an end

I was pleased at the result of the last election, but am rapidly becoming disillusioned at the political games of this government (“Will the Tories ever get past Labour’s evergreen zinger: ‘But you crashed the economy…’?” Wednesday 20 November).

The decision to means-test the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance (in the hope, I believe, that it would be blamed on the previous government) was bad enough. To then argue it is mitigated because pensioners will be better off due to the effect of the triple lock is to conflate two different policies.

The triple lock was intended to protect the basic value of pensions. The winter fuel allowance sought to ensure that pensioners were able to stay warm during the winter. The two policies serve different purposes. That the government is trying to justify their disastrous decision on winter fuel payments by conflating them feels intentionally deceptive.

It speaks volumes about their realisation as to just how politically damaging the decision will continue to be by the time of the next election.

Arthur Streatfield

Bath

‘All or nothing’ is no answer

Peter Kyle, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, states that a social media ban for the under-16s is on the table if online firms do not take appropriate action to protect kids online (“Social media ban for teenagers under consideration – Technology Secretary”, Wednesday 20 November).

This comes ahead of the implementation of the much-vaunted Online Safety Act, which takes effect in the coming weeks, and which aims to make the online ecosystem far safer for the UK’s young people.

We should tentatively welcome Kyle’s suggestion, as it shows how seriously this government is approaching the issue of online safety. We’ve already seen the Australian government move towards implementing a similar ban for under-16s.

However, while it is important to support children in keeping safe online, there are better ways of achieving this, while also not stifling the educational, social and community benefits that social media can bring to teenagers.

Instead of an outright ban, we must push for accurate age checks, and allow platforms to deliver age-appropriate experiences instead. There could then be potential penalties put in place if companies don’t fulfil this responsibility.

The Online Safety Act is a hugely important opportunity to make the internet safer. Technology companies and social media firms should take proactive steps to ensure they are ready for its implementation. This includes having robust, privacy preserving age assurance and content moderation tools in place that will keep our young people safe online.

Andy Lulham

Shoreditch, London