Dear Subscribers,
Kemi Badenoch is the new leader of the Conservative Party. As Trade Secretary, Badenoch was one of the few Conservative front-benchers willing to talk about the benefits of Brexit. Now that she is leader of the opposition, she has an opportunity to embrace the vision for the UK which won elections in 2016 and 2019.
Rachel Reeves’ first budget as Chancellor will see taxation and spending rising to historic highs. By 2030, public spending as a percentage of GDP is projected to reach 44.6%. Once spending on benefits is taken into account, that means that 29% of the UK’s productive economic activity will be carried out by public organisations notorious for their poor levels of productivity.
Promises growth, delivers taxes
A leaked document shows that the EU considers a youth mobility scheme “an indispensable element” of Keir Starmer’s proposed ‘reset’ of UK-EU relations. In public, Starmer has been hesitant to endorse such a scheme, reassuring voters that there would be no return to free movement. In private, there should be little doubt that he is in favour of free movement, having been its champion while in opposition.
The UK is now importing record amounts of electricity from overseas. After shutting down coal and nuclear power plants and having failed to replace them, Britain is now reliant on overseas producers more than ever before. Other countries are trying to maximise their domestic electricity production as its strategic importance grows. The Labour government are taking an unwise risk by bucking the trend.
UK runs out of energy
The day before the budget, it emerged that the killer in the Southport knife attack (which triggered riots across the UK) is being charged with terrorism offences. Throughout the summer, the media and the government poured scorn on those who suggested that terrorism was involved. It is, of course, important to maintain public order. But in the long run, dishonesty will only undermine trust in public authorities. The government should come clean about what it knew and when, and why it tried to suppress the truth.
Media
Briefings co-editor Robert Tombs on accountability and corruption in public life
Ross Clark on Britain’s energy dependence
Matt Goodwin on the Southport murders
Blog
Badenoch: is She Rewriting the Rules of Political Debate? By Brian Morris
We want leaders who promise to make things better. Who are clear on what should be done and say they’re determined to do what’s needed. That much is conventional political wisdom. But Kemi Badenoch, contender for the Tory leadership, hasn’t signed up to politics as usual. A revealing debate with Robert Jenrick on GB News suggests that maybe, just maybe, she’s introducing a more grown-up conversation to our politics.
Kemi would shine against plodding Sir Keir. She would also face the arch-populist, Nigel Farage. Although she would not invite him to join her party, she said Farage ‘speaks with clarity. He speaks with conviction’. A signal to Conservatives they need a leader with the same clarity and conviction. Kemi versus Nigel would be a debate worth buying tickets for.
Britain’s Place in the World by Robert Tombs
Our co-editor Robert Tombs was recently invited to take part in a discussion at St George’s House, Windsor, on Britain’s Place in the World. A report of the discussions was published, including a list of the participants. As Robert appeared to be the sole Brexiteer in the group, which included many prominent Remainers, he asked to write a supplementary comment on the original report, which the organisers accepted. The original report can be found here, and we publish Robert’s comments below.
In an uncertain situation, we have a duty to look to our own security and prosperity first, even if this requires uncomfortable, even painful, choices. It may not long prove possible to be everyone’s friend, and we would be forced to take sides in a serious conflict in Asia. We urgently need to increase our defence capacities and our resilience, first and foremost in our energy security (to which an accelerated nuclear policy seems the only feasible route), our cyber security, and our sea power. Neither the previous nor the present government have shown that they appreciate the urgency of the dangers.
Key Points
According to the budget, inheritance tax will be charged on farms worth more than £1 million, meaning that the next generation of British farmers will have to find cash valuing 20% of the total value of their farm if they want to take over the business from their parents. The rationale is obvious: the government wants to have more money to spend, but it doesn’t want to upset its core voters, so it targets an asset-rich portion of the population and charges them for the privilege of continuing a custom they have practised for generations.
But taxing farmers for passing on their farms to their children is not a way of rinsing the rich to give to the poor. Farming families may be asset-rich, but they are often cash poor. For many, inheritance tax will mean selling off their land, either gradually or all in one go, and giving up a business that has been in the family for generations.
Who will buy up the land that farmers are forced to sell? It is unlikely to be other small or medium sized farms. Instead, the land will be distributed between large international agricultural corporations and the international super rich, looking for lifestyle estates or long term investments. Instead of being run by British families who have an interest in the long-term prosperity of the UK, British farms will increasingly fall into the hands of people with no sympathy or sentiment for the nation.
It’s hard to know what to make of a government that would give away ownership of large parts of the countryside for the sake of a marginal improvement in its balance of payments. On the one hand, there is something charmingly antiquated about a socialist government going after the ‘landed gentry’. But instead of seizing the land for the people, 21st century socialists are happy to see it disappear into the growing pool of global trophy assets traded by super-wealthy foreigners. Perhaps the best explanation is that they just don’t care what happens to the countryside, so even marginal fiscal gains make it worth their while.
