Starmer backs down in farm tax row - but why now?

For those who had campaigned against the imposition of 20% inheritance tax from next year, the government's partial U-turn on what opponents dubbed the farms tax was a Christmas present for those who campaigneed in favour of Around half of the farms that would have been affected by the hurricane will now be exempted. However, considering that ministers had defended the policy in the 14 months following last year's Budget, why change it? And why now? Sustained demonstrations - the regular convoys of tractors, horns blaring, converging on Parliament Square - all played a part. The National Farmers' Union, which had arranged the tumultuous protests, had also played a bit of diplomacy behind the scenes with Downing Street and the agriculture department. According to reports, discussions evolved to mitigating rather than obliterating the policy completely. But there are other factors. More of the party's MPs now hold rural and semi-rural seats as a result of last year's landslide Labour election victory. Some of them had been pushing for compromises behind closed doors. Although just one voted against, more than 30 of them abstained on a parliamentary vote on inheritance tax reform earlier this month to voice their doubts. The reasons for the government's volte face timing are speculative, beyond this. One of the rural rebels told me that ministers' discussions had been more positive this month, though they hadn't been informed in advance of yesterday's announcement. And some believe Sir Keir Starmer's presence before the liaison committee, which is made up of senior MPs who chair cross-party parliamentary committees, was instrumental. He was put in jeopardy by Labour MP Cat Smith and Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, both of whom in effect suggested that some farmers were considering suicide - or, in effect, actively planning to expedite their own deaths before inheritance tax was introduced next April so that they could pass on their family farms. The prime minister was made very clear that personal tragedies - as well as bad headlines - was very real.

When MPs return to Parliament in January, Downing Street is eager to get back to Parliament, and dispelling this particular political cloud may have been a vital precursor. The Conservatives maintain that the policy change was sneaked out while MPs were absent and that ministers were not subjected to scrutiny. A reversal of recess would not have a positive influence on a government led by 400 of parliament's 650 seats. Although some Labour MPs are relieved that the government has listened, others are curious why it stuck with a program that was only expected to raise very little money. This change is going to cost £130m. It's just a small fraction of the £900 billion in tax revenue generated in total, to put it into perspective. Of course, with Labour leading the polls, there are questions over the government's potential to make the political climate. Where revenue raising plans are announced by the Treasury, something like a modus operandi is emerging, followed by a public backlash and internal Labour dissatisfaction, which is followed by partial reversal after the political damage has been mitigated. Consider winter fuel, welfare reform, and now family farms. The policies may have changed, but political convictions remain.