Current Most Read

Eyelash Serums and Lash Health: What Really Works?

How to prepare for concert ticket presales and sales on Ticketmaster

The Lady Gaga Manchester Ticket Chaos: Fans Left Frustrated

Labour's Landslide: A Victory Masking Deeper Political Shifts and Rising Far-Right Sentiments in the UK

Connor Banks
Jul 8, 2024
2 min read

For the first time in over 14 years, the Conservative Party has been ousted from power. In the election held on July 4, 2024, Labour emerged victorious with a commanding supermajority, winning 412 seats in the House of Commons. The Tories, in stark contrast, were reduced to just 121 seats, with high-profile MPs like Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Penny Mordaunt, and Grant Shapps losing their constituencies. The British public has spoken: they no longer want Conservative rule. But this isn't necessarily a wholehearted endorsement of Labour, as a closer look at the results reveals.

An Illusion of Victory

Yes, Labour has secured 412 seats, the most since Tony Blair's time. However, when we delve into the numbers, this victory appears less overwhelming. In reality, Keir Starmer's Labour received fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn's (who also won as an independent in his constituency by a large margin) "unelectable" campaigns in 2017 and 2019. This year, Labour garnered only 9,660,081 votes, compared to 12,877,918 in 2017 and 10,295,912 in 2019. This suggests that Starmer's win was driven more by a desire to oust the Tory government than a genuine surge in support for Labour. This trend was especially evident in the South of England, where the Liberal Democrats captured numerous traditionally Conservative seats through tactical voting. So, if this election was more about rejecting the Tories, what does this mean for the future of Britain?

The Rise of Reform

Another significant point of concern is the surprising performance of Reform UK. Although they won only four constituencies, they received 4,117,221 votes, making them the third most popular party by vote count. Why should this worry us if they only secured four seats?

The concern arises from the fact that an openly far-right party attracted so many votes, which could push the political landscape further in that direction. The Conservative Party might attempt to lure these voters by adopting more extreme policies, as they did with Brexit and the Rwanda immigration plan. This phenomenon isn't unique to the UK. In Germany, right-wing parties have increasingly aligned with far-right nationalists to capture additional votes. If the Tories follow suit, even if Starmer's Labour governs effectively for the next five years, they could potentially regain power by leaning further right. More alarmingly, the 4 million votes for Reform UK signal that a significant portion of the electorate is comfortable supporting far-right ideologies. With similar movements gaining momentum across Europe in countries like Germany, Sweden, and France, it's not hard to envision a future where our democracy could be threatened by a far-right populist wave.

Navigating an Uncertain Future

As Labour steps into power with a historic supermajority, the true story of this election unfolds beneath the surface. The results reveal a painting of voter dissatisfaction, strategic alliances, and the troubling rise of far-right sentiments. While the victory marks a significant shift in the UK's political landscape, it also underscores the fragility of democratic ideals in the face of populist movements. The coming years will test Starmer’s ability to govern effectively and the nation's resilience against the pull of extreme ideologies. Britain's political future, now more uncertain than ever, will be shaped by how these forces are navigated and addressed.

The End of the Safety Net: Why Slashing Farm Subsidies Could Threaten the UK’s Food Future

All Articles

16 April 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Not only do UK farmers now face the looming threat of inheritance tax reforms that could force centuries-old family farms to be sold off - but they’re also contending with a policy shift that dismantles the very foundation of their economic stability: the withdrawal of direct farm subsidies.

A black-and-white cow grazes on a lush, green field with a dense forest in the background. The scene is peaceful and natural.

In a time of global instability - wars in Europe and the Middle East, disrupted trade routes, volatile commodity markets - the UK government is removing financial safeguards that have underpinned British agriculture for decades. And it’s doing so faster than many in the industry can adapt.

The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), a direct subsidy paid to farmers under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is in its final years. By 2027, it will be completely gone. In its place: a complex, tiered system of environmental schemes under the umbrella of the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS). Worthy in theory, but in practice? A mess of bureaucracy, delays, and shortfalls.

And the timing couldn’t be worse.

A Lifeline Cut-Off Before the Bridge Was Built

The BPS wasn’t perfect, but it provided one essential function - it kept farms afloat. Payments were calculated based on the amount of land farmed, offering predictability and a cashflow buffer that allowed British farms to invest in new equipment, manage seasonal fluctuations, and ride out the weather, both literal and economic.

Now, payments have been rapidly reduced. By 2024, many farmers had already lost 35%–50% of their BPS income. In 2025, a new cap of £7,200 per farm will apply. That’s a fraction of the £20,000 to £50,000 mid-size farms previously received.

The replacement - ELMS - promises payments for "public goods": improving soil health, reducing carbon emissions, boosting biodiversity. Laudable aims. But ask most farmers, and they’ll tell you: they don’t object to sustainability. What they object to is the speed and scale of the transition, and the fact that the new payments often don’t come close to replacing what’s being lost.

Environmental Schemes: Aspirations Without Infrastructure

At the core of ELMS are three tiers:

Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI): Encourages low-level changes such as herbal leys, no-till farming, and reducing fertiliser use.
Local Nature Recovery: Pays for habitat restoration and targeted environmental actions.
Landscape Recovery: Funds large-scale, long-term ecosystem restoration, often in collaboration with multiple landowners.

But uptake has been patchy at best. As of late 2024, fewer than half of eligible farms had enrolled in any ELMS scheme. Why?

The schemes are confusing. Farmers must navigate different options, overlapping rules, and constant revisions.
The application process is time-consuming and opaque.
Payments under SFI are often insufficient, especially for mixed or livestock farms in upland areas where land-use change is more difficult.
Crucially, many tenanted farmers - nearly a third of all farms in England - face legal and logistical barriers to taking part.

DEFRA has promised streamlining. But meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo - without clear income streams, but still expected to feed the nation.

The Cost of Poor Policy Timing

Agricultural experts, rural economists, and even major retailers have raised alarm bells. In a scathing 2023 report, the National Audit Office warned that DEFRA had failed to communicate the changes effectively, leaving many in the dark about what the new schemes offer.

The NFU (National Farmers’ Union) has repeatedly called on the government to pause BPS cuts until ELMS is fully functioning, but those calls have largely been ignored. In late 2024, a coalition of MPs from all parties demanded a review, warning that this abrupt withdrawal of support could lead to an exodus from the industry.

And that’s not just a theoretical risk. A nationwide NFU survey found that 11% of farmers were considering leaving farming altogether due to the combined impact of reduced subsidies, labour shortages, and rising costs.

Food Security in an Uncertain World

This isn’t just a farming problem - it’s a national one.

The UK is already heavily reliant on imports for key food items. And with international trade routes threatened by conflict in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and shipping disruptions in the Red Sea, supply chains are becoming more fragile by the month.

Should we really be cutting back our domestic food production capacity now?

Government ambitions to rewild 10% of farmland, promote biodiversity, and shift toward carbon sequestration may look good on a whiteboard in Whitehall. But on the ground, it’s leading to reduced livestock numbers, lower domestic output, and a growing dependence on foreign markets that may not be as reliable as once assumed.

A Dangerous Gamble

To many farmers, this feels like an ideological experiment being conducted in real-time -with their livelihoods and our food supply on the line. And as supermarket CEOs and farming groups increasingly speak out, it’s clear this isn’t just grumbling from the shires. It’s a cry of alarm from the foundation of the UK’s food system.

Environmental ambition is important. Climate change is real. But so is hunger.

We can pursue sustainability - but not by pulling the rug out from under those who feed us. The government’s subsidy reform may have noble aims, but its execution is flawed, its timeline reckless, and its consequences potentially devastating.

If we want a resilient, secure food future, we must support the people who make it possible - not push them to the brink.