How do Labour's inheritance tax policies support sustainable agriculture in Britain?

[LMcD]

Well they were, along with the rest of the electorate. Actually, lied to is more accurate IMO. A lot of that was the result of government pig-ignorance of the workings of the EU, as became horribly apparent as soon as engagement with the negotiators in Brussels began. Those lies were not challenged, indeed they were made use of, simply continuing the entrenched "everything is the fault of the EU" mindset.
If one has no reason to think that the body which claims to be running the country is in fact doing nothing of the sort, (and in fact hadn't been for a long time,thanks to the tiresome details being dealt with by negotiation with European partners "over there") then there isn't the prompt to question what is being sold, or at least not enough of one. There were those who knew otherwise but they weren't listened to, especially if they were known for taking the line that actually some at least of the things that didn't work so well in the UK were the choice/decision of the government, not the EU.
The lack of everyday information in England about what the country got from membership of the club meant there was no counter to the "we pay in squillions and get nothing back" complaint. Projects funded or supported by EU funds didn't get publicity, or if the star circle and a bit of text appeared it was invariably tiny and tucked away. I couldn't help noticing the big roadside boards when visiting family in Scotland that made it quite clear the part that EU funding played in the good quality roads.
Due to my own activities and interests over many years(starting with micro-scale food producing for a local market more than 30 years ago) I was perhaps more aware of the extent to which things were not as we were told. Family connections also provided other views from across the Channel. Many of the everyday irritations that were blamed on 'European rules' were in fact down to UK bodies gold-plating and/or mis-applying regulations, and also not differentiating correctly between what was advisory and what was mandatory.

I just assumed - no, I was convinced - that leaving would be a serious mistake, and derive little pleasure from knowing that I was right to think so.

[french frank]

Well they were [misled], along with the rest of the electorate. Actually, lied to is more accurate IMO.

The sad thing is that a majority of those who even bothered to vote couldn't work this out for themselves. "We believed what we were told" prompts the question "Why?"

[oddoneout]

The sad thing is that a majority of those who even bothered to vote couldn't work this out for themselves. "We believed what we were told" prompts the question "Why?"

Why not? What reason did people have, not knowing anything themselves about how the EU works, to question the propaganda? If their preferred source of 'information' was the likes of The Sun or Daily Mail and associated social media then what is accepted as fact is whatever such sources provide. "It's in the paper so it must be right" can be difficult to impossible to argue against even if one can provide the evidence that the paper isn't right.
If even those who are capable of doing a bit of reading around a subject choose not to, for whatever reason, then what chance those whose education and life circumstances do not enable,encourage or allow critical thinking.

[LMcD]

Why not? What reason did people have, not knowing anything themselves about how the EU works, to question the propaganda? If their preferred source of 'information' was the likes of The Sun or Daily Mail and associated social media then what is accepted as fact is whatever such sources provide. "It's in the paper so it must be right" can be difficult to impossible to argue against even if one can provide the evidence that the paper isn't right.
If even those who are capable of doing a bit of reading around a subject choose not to, for whatever reason, then what chance those whose education and life circumstances do not enable,encourage or allow critical thinking.

I think a lot of people were swayed by the repeated images of the 'NHS bus'.

[vinteuil]

Why not? What reason did people have, not knowing anything themselves about how the EU works, to question the propaganda? If their preferred source of 'information' was the likes of The Sun or Daily Mail and associated social media then what is accepted as fact is whatever such sources provide. "It's in the paper so it must be right" can be difficult to impossible to argue against even if one can provide the evidence that the paper isn't right.
If even those who are capable of doing a bit of reading around a subject choose not to, for whatever reason, then what chance those whose education and life circumstances do not enable,encourage or allow critical thinking.

... a very well put argument as to why referendums are a very bad idea.

(In my gloomier moments, an argument as to why democracy itself isn't perhaps so clever after all - but let's not go there... )







.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I was still making current affairs films during the referendum. The key thing was not the bus but that phrase “take back control.” EU immigration was a key issue and also sovereignty. The economic arguments seemed to have little traction. One remainer Tory MP I knew had quite a few heated debates with farmers in his constituency. He told me that a lot of them had no idea of the potential impact on exports and indeed what now appear to be cuts to subsidies.

[teamsaint]

The sad thing is that a majority of those who even bothered to vote couldn't work this out for themselves. "We believed what we were told" prompts the question "Why?"

A lot of people believe a lot of what they are told. All of us believe at least some of what we are told.
The important thing is to question what we are told, especially when we are told, effectively that “ there is no alternative”. But questioning has in many instances become a badge of being “ far right”, or whatever, when in fact it should be IMO a badge of the thoughtful “progressive” . But we live in very strange times, it seems .

(The question of an EU standing army was frequently mentioned during the referendum, but questions around EU foreign policy were seldom if ever addressed. )

[teamsaint]

... a very well put argument as to why referendums are a very bad idea.

(In my gloomier moments, an argument as to why democracy itself isn't perhaps so clever after all - but let's not go there... )







.

Some of the issues lie surely with flawed democratic systems, rather than the principle? But then that was often said of socialism/ communism, in the far off days before The End of History , when such things were seriously discussed.

[oddoneout]

I was still making current affairs films during the referendum. The key thing was not the bus but that phrase “take back control.” EU immigration was a key issue and also sovereignty. The economic arguments seemed to have little traction. One remainer Tory MP I knew had quite a few heated debates with farmers in his constituency. He told me that a lot of them had no idea of the potential impact on exports and indeed what now appear to be cuts to subsidies.

The idea that the EU was responsible for the immigration issues that became such a target of ill feeling and worse was one of the lies allowed to continue. Controls were available, and used in France and Germany for instance, but not here. Simple things like requiring a job either on entry or within 3 months, keeping track of where such new entrants were and whether they had met the requirements or would need to leave were not enacted. But letting people think that the EU was stopping the UK from acting suited those concerned.
One of the things that puzzled me about the farmers' situation was that Defra's record on implementing payment systems and getting the money out has never been good, so to believe what was being promised as replacements for EU subsidies post Brexit was an astonishing triumph of hope over experience and one that, as usual, hit the little people hardest. I do wonder if complacency played a part - farmers having got used to being protected and supported by UK government against the EU baddies(as they saw it) and taking their side in negotiations in Brussels. The idea that that wouldn't continue never came into consideration, and by the time the cluelessness of the government became apparent it was too late.

[french frank]

A lot of people believe a lot of what they are told.

That is the point I don't dispute, but my question was Why? I suppose the reason is that ignorant people (and that isn't a term of disparagement but of context: we are all "ignorant" about most things) can still believe they are right. That is irrational.

All of us believe at least some of what we are told. The important thing is to question what we are told, especially when we are told, effectively that “ there is no alternative”. But questioning has in many instances become a badge of being “ far right”, or whatever, when in fact it should be IMO a badge of the thoughtful “progressive” . But we live in very strange times, it seems.

Thoughtful questioners can explain their reasons. The badge of the far right is that the worst don't explain: their reasons are unexpressed or inexpressible.

(The question of an EU standing army was frequently mentioned during the referendum, but questions around EU foreign policy were seldom if ever addressed. )

What was the issue about EU foreign policy?

[teamsaint]

That is the point I don't dispute, but my question was Why? I suppose the reason is that ignorant people (and that isn't a term of disparagement but of context: we are all "ignorant" about most things) can still believe they are right. That is irrational.



Thoughtful questioners can explain their reasons. The badge of the far right is that the worst don't explain: their reasons are unexpressed or inexpressible.



What was the issue about EU foreign policy?

I just meant that questions around EU foreign policy weren’t discussed much, although the business of an army was, admittedly mostly by leavers. It seemed to me that they ought to be linked discussions. Maybe others see it differently.
FWIW , the FP issues that I was interested in was responses to various wars, and possible funding of land acquisitions in developing countries, an issue I became aware of during the referendum campaign. These weren’t , obviously significant issues in decision making for most people.

[french frank]

FWIW , the FP issues that I was interested in was responses to various wars, and possible funding of land acquisitions in developing countries, an issue I became aware of during the referendum campaign. These weren’t , obviously significant issues in decision making for most people.

Yes, I see that point. But it's a bit like the US election, 'people' weren't interested in threats to democracy but in the cost of living, and they blamed their perceived growing hardship on the Democrat administration which did nothing convincing to address their concerns. But as regards the EU, even I with my obsessive-compulsive habit of straightening pictures which are a (perceived ) millimetre off straight, knowing full well that next time I pass they will need straightening by one millimetre in the other direction, even I don't expect everything to be perfect even if I want it to be. It's like the BBC in reverse: Remainer criticisms of the EU are taken up and trumpeted by Leavers, just as the BBC will take up any attempts to be fair and balanced by critics and trumpet any praise as indicating success while ignoring adverse criticism. Yooman nature, I suppose.