Full list of 190 seats Labour could lose after Keir Starmer’s attack on countryside
Keir Starmer’s Labour government is facing a significant backlash from rural communities over its proposed inheritance tax changes, which threaten to alienate farmers and rural voters. The controversy stems from Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Budget announcement that, from April 2026, combined agricultural and business property assets above £1 million will be taxed at an effective rate of 20%. This move has sparked outrage among farmers, who argue that it will force many family farms to sell land or shut down entirely to meet the tax burden.
Baroness Ann Mallalieu, president of the Countryside Alliance and a Labour peer, has warned Starmer that the policy risks “turning the countryside into a no-go zone” for the party. She emphasized that farmers are a vital part of the national fabric and enjoy overwhelming public support. Mallalieu cautioned that the government’s approach could undo years of effort to build trust with rural voters, potentially haunting Labour for a generation.
The issue is particularly pressing for Labour, as nearly 190 of its MPs hold seats that include rural areas. Many of these MPs are now feeling the heat from their constituents and have begun to push back against the policy. Some have formed the Labour Rural Growth Group to collectively voice their concerns, while others, like Tonia Antoniazzi (MP for Gower), have publicly supported the National Farmers Union’s call for a pause on the inheritance tax changes. Antoniazzi stressed the need for more time to assess the full impact of the policy on family farms in Wales.
The Daily Express’s *Save Britain’s Family Farms* campaign has also amplified the outcry, demanding a U-turn on the tax hike. During a Westminster Hall debate, MPs like David Smith and Julia Buckley called for adjustments to the policy, including a temporary transitional extension to the taper, to allow older farmers to pass assets to the next generation without crippling tax bills.
The government, however, has defended the policy, stating that it represents a “fair and balanced approach.” A spokesperson highlighted that farmers will pay a reduced inheritance tax rate of 20% compared to the standard 40% for other businesses, with payments spread over 10 years interest-free. The government also pointed to its £5 billion investment in farming over the next two years, the largest budget for sustainable food production in UK history.
Despite these assurances, the policy has sparked widespread anger and concern. Farmers argue that the tax changes threaten not only their livelihoods but also national food security. The public, too, appears to side with farmers, with polls showing strong opposition to the inheritance tax hike. Even Labour’s own voters have expressed disapproval, further complicating the party’s position.
The controversy has exposed a growing divide between the government and rural communities, with farmers vowing to fight the policy through increasingly sophisticated campaigns. For Labour MPs in rural seats, the situation presents a dilemma: stand with their constituents and risk defying party leadership, or toe the line and face the wrath of voters. As Baroness Mallalieu put it, “Farmers are not going to give up, and a long, bitter battle between them and the government is an incredibly bad look for our party.”
The question now is whether Labour will heed these warnings and reconsider its approach, or double down on a policy that risks alienating a key demographic. With public sentiment firmly on the side of farmers, the government’s handling of this issue could have lasting repercussions for its standing in rural areas—and its prospects in future elections.
