Labour had very specifically told the farmers (prior to the issue of their manifesto) that IHT was not to be changed. They had/have every right to change their mind, but they could have, or should have, told the farmers of this. The silence on the matter in their manifesto does not, in this...
OK, but can we expand on that "help if necessary" bit. Who does that? Is it added to the doctor's many roles? Or a part of the palliative care nurses role? I think we'd find rather a lot of medical staff who would not do it.
Yes, but the farm is not a "pension pot" built up over the farmer's working life, like yours or mine. The farmers never earn enough to build up a pension. So the effect of IHT will be to reduce the means for their successors to earn, whether they sell off part of the farm or pay it off over...
Unfortunately with all the inflationary moves so far, ie increasing wages, increasing employment costs, interest rates are probably more likely to rise sooner rather than later.
Edit - oh look, inflation up to 2.3% already.
Steve Reed is looking like a nasty person. He has a vendetta against wealthy people investing in farm land, which he says they do for inheritance purposes. That being the case, why not find a way to claim more tax from those horrid wealthy people, instead of raising crippling taxes on farmers?
I see election manifestoes as nothing more than a wish list. Believe it all at your peril.
I only get upset if the manifesto states something in particular which either the party knew could not be achieved or does not yet know enough to make such promises. I am afraid I would put the labour...