Robbing Peter to pay Paul

Hear, hear

Entirely agree. Where on earth do these people in London get the idea that if you live in the countryside, you are automatically wealthy? Looking at too much Brideshead and Downton, no doubt! Probably the politics of envy. Just in case they read this, I (like thousands of others) have to use LPG and oil, as well as rationed electricity. Ended up with hypothermia!

But that’s the government for you.
This time it’s the Labour government. Other governments undoubtedly had little regard for rural dwellers, but this lot boast about what they’re doing.

Can you give a link or a newspaper article? I can't find it

Whose decision is this?

A report was compiled and published in October 2025 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

English indices of deprivation 2025: rural report
Report outlining how rural deprivation has been explicitly considered in the development of the indices of deprivation

It's very long, I haven't read it but it might be of interest.

Young people are being driven away from the countryside by lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs and lack of public transport.

So our government in it's infinite wisdom has decided that monies will be taken from wealthy rural areas to go to deprived urban areas.

Council tax has often been redistributed from perceived 'wealthy areas' to those of deprivation. It depends what the definition of deprivation is, of course. And of wealthy.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/delivering-radical-rebalancing-funding-more-deprived-councils

I think this has been the case for many years, not new with this govt.
I may be mistaken or out of date but I thought the purpose was to help councils in 'poorer' areas where comparatively fewer households were in the upper bands of council tax payment and thus were unable to raise enough money to fund local services. So a sort of equaliser.

If I've got it all wrong someone will be along to tell me but I'm sure this used to be the case.

It’s unclear what OP is talking about but if this is to do with central government core grants to local authorities to fund local services such as adult social care, children’s education and other child services (by far the two most expensive slices of local council expenditure costing over £5 million per day in this one county council), what has that got to do with capital taxes, housebuilding and energy costs?

It stands to reason that urban areas have much larger populations than rural areas and therefore the costs of providing key services will be much higher.

Unless you can demonstrate that key local authority service provision is no longer happening in rural areas as a result of the changes, I don’t see the argument.

I live in what is called a "deprived area". Some of the indices, among others, are the number of children eligible from free school meals, % unemployed, and those receiving pension credits.
We have been able to apply for additional funding for many years based on the deprivation index - not sure what is new now. Schools receive a standard amount because it has been shown that performance is lower, but can also apply for project support (extra funding for home computers during lockdown was one). I was also able to apply for specific funding for my youth group.
This is not urban/rural specific BUT some urban pockets are also part of a bigger ward/district which masks the low - if these are identified money may go that way

A country area does not mean wealth. Where I live there are very many small villages basically having been taken over by holiday home owners. Where do the owners live, yes, in the cities, other countries. The locals basically have rural jobs, some servicing the holiday homes in two or three villages, travelling to towns for work. How can such a clear line between country and towns be applied to poverty.

Presumably there is a larger proportion of benefit recipients in the urban areas to vote Liebour at elections.

Judy54, where did you get this information from? I should like to see the details. In the link that Allira gave, it seems the worst hit are some London councils rather than rural one.

LadyBridgerton, presumably, you can provide verified data to support your postulation that there is a correlation between " benefit recipients" ( bearing in mind that the State Pension is listed as a benefit) and voting " Liebour", whomever this might be, or, indeed Labour.

Anybody who uses the terminology “ Liebour” really needs to get off their high horse and use some common sense. Or maybe that request is beneath them?

I seem to remember when the Tories were in power they gave extra money to some rural areas, and in particular to North Yorkshire where Richie Sunak lived.

Susieq62

Anybody who uses the terminology “ Liebour” really needs to get off their high horse and use some common sense. Or maybe that request is beneath them?

It’s par for the course.
Whichever government is in power, they are often addressed in insulting terms, depending on personal experience of what that government has done.

I suppose you think all those who do that about any government are lacking in common sense.

How much it irritates the reader depends on their POV about the government in question.

LadyBridgerton What about all the older poorer people in ex-Labour constituencies voting Reform? They are on benefits and receiving much more than many benefit claimants with their annual increase protected by the triple lock.

Sweeping generalisations based on a sample of none are not conducive to rational discussion.

So what’s the end game? We all become the same and there won’t be any lovely areas to visit? This government is intent on destroying us.

Speaking here as someone who is now semi rural but ran a farm for 20 years.. it has always been much more expensive to live in the country - no public transport, no gas, septic tanks, very limited services (which our taxes pay for) etc.
However, I do not agree that farmers should be entirely exempt from IHT. This exemption was brought in, I believe, by the John Major government in 1992 (other versions had been around for a while but this government enacted it in totality) and it has been used as a tax loophole for years.
Equally, I think the exemptions should be clearer and the tax should only be implemented when a farm is sold, not upon inheritance by a family member.

Even simpler would be to give the exemptions only to those who are working farmers and are passing the farm onto someone in the family who will also being working it. This would exclude those who own land but leave its management to agents and tenants. It should also be possible to put limits on the size of farm that can be exempt. Obviously this size would vary across the country, so someone with a 2,000 hectare farm in a lowland county would pay tax on any land above that amount, but this might go up to 4,000 hectares for hill farmers raising sheep.

Can the O/P explain what they are more specifically alluding to please?
(and surely this belongs in News and Politics?)

and surely this belongs in News and Politics?

Does it really matter which topic heading it's under? It's the subject that matters, not the forum it's posted on; it will still appear in Active Threads.