The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Do people still use Twitter? Or is it just a rightwing echo-chamber?

Just seems to be full of angry "Theitukrrjaaabss" types.

Pretty sure it tends to recommend posts to you based on your history and who you are following so if you get a lot of that type of thing I'd take a look at that first. 

[Turkish]

Well if Nadine Dorries claims are true they’ll need more than a broom to clean out a couple of offices in Wesminster 😳😳😳😳

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Well if Nadine Dorries claims are true they’ll need more than a broom to clean out a couple of offices in Wesminster 😳😳😳😳

Have they found where she stashed her empties ?

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Well if Nadine Dorries claims are true they’ll need more than a broom to clean out a couple of offices in Wesminster 😳😳😳😳

It’s behind a paywall on the Mail’s website but it sounds absolutely foul. Her book is currently being serialised via them. It was never going to be high on intellectual content but Mad Nads is going for the shock factor. 

[whelk]

None of the papers or news channels have picked up ‘dantalks’ exclusive. Baffled as to why such a seismic revelation that could bring down Starmer hasn’t been mentioned?

[hypochondriac]

I haven't read beyond the headline but if there isn't more to this story how is this allowed? Surely we should be looking to change this? 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It’s behind a paywall on the Mail’s website but it sounds absolutely foul. Her book is currently being serialised via them. It was never going to be high on intellectual content but Mad Nads is going for the shock factor. 

She was on GMB this morning promoting her book which exposes it all. Apparently there was a whatsapp group which encouraged politicians to attend a couple of offices which were set aside for certain activities. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I haven't read beyond the headline but if there isn't more to this story how is this allowed? Surely we should be looking to change this? 

The Hone Office have appealled the decision as they want to deport him and the judgement did not take into account the victim of the assaults. There will be a new hearing.

Edited Monday at 10:58 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The Hone Office have appealled the decision as they want to deport him and the judgement did not take into account the victim of the assaults. There will be a new hearing.

Glad to hear there's more context. Hopefully common sense will prevail. 

[sadoldgit]

There was a perfect example of what Starmer is up against on Questuon Time last week. Tim Stanley from The Telegraph told us that the media is “overwhelmingly left wing” and was not challenged on his ridiculous statement by Fiona Bruce. The Telegraph have gradually sunk to the levels of the Mail and it is a sign of the times that such statements go unchallenged in main stream media nowadays.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

There was a perfect example of what Starmer is up against on Questuon Time last week. Tim Stanley from The Telegraph told us that the media is “overwhelmingly left wing” and was not challenged on his ridiculous statement by Fiona Bruce. The Telegraph have gradually sunk to the levels of the Mail and it is a sign of the times that such statements go unchallenged in main stream media nowadays.

I didn’t realise Paul Marshall, owner of GB News, had pulled out of buying it. Instead it’s a British born American owner in pole position. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/daily-telegraph-sale-dovid-efune-new-york-sun-b2625225.html

It sounds like a local bogstandard neocon response to the New York Times, on a fraction on the circulation. Sounds like a bid is quite a bit more than anyone else which makes you wonder what he wants with it. Possibly to boost the NY Sun’s appeal beyond it’s compact centre-right suburban footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Sun#:~:text=The New York Sun is,well as occasional arts content.

Interesting little link to the DT’s past - Conrad Black was also involved with the NY Sun’s revival in the 00s.

No obvious red flags as to being approved politically, it’s old school DT fayre, I just can’t see where he’s getting the money from as it’s like the owner of Poole Town buying Saints https://pressgazette.co.uk/north-america/telegraph-bidder-dovid-efunes-new-york-sun-is-obscure-even-in-home-city/

Rumours that he’s seeking other investors, and he should, because the DT runs an annual loss of £240m, which is too much for even offshore tax dodgers the Barclays, plus their very costly family dispute. 

Edited Monday at 13:12 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

There was a perfect example of what Starmer is up against on Questuon Time last week. Tim Stanley from The Telegraph told us that the media is “overwhelmingly left wing” and was not challenged on his ridiculous statement by Fiona Bruce.

 

Fiona Bruce’s far right leanings have been there for all to see for years. Antiques Roadshow is basically racist, a yearning for a golden age that never existed.  the other week some white bloke brought along a letter from WW1 trenches & Fiona didn’t even mention the part played by ethnic soldiers in the Great War. Now she’s not pulling up a bloke when he gives his opinion on QT. No wonder Starmers opinion ratings are going  down quicker than Katie Price, look what he’s up against.

Keep fighting the fight, one post at a time, your impartiality will win out eventually . The public will eventually see the press for what it is, far right… 

Edited Monday at 13:13 by Lord Duckhunter

[rooney]

Fiona Bruce continually interrupts members of the panel on QT when they are giving an answer to an audience question. Getting too big for her boots methinks.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, rooney said:

Fiona Bruce continually interrupts members of the panel on QT when they....

^This

Edited Tuesday at 08:56 by trousers

[tdmickey3]

Shame its raining in London, all those poor farmers getting wet

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Shame its raining in London, all those poor farmers getting wet

Is Jezza at the head of the march? Didn’t he say that he bought his farm so that he could avoid inheritance tax?

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Shame its raining in London, all those poor farmers getting wet

Yeah, they should be back in their fields where they wouldn't be getting wet.... 🤦‍♂️

Edited Tuesday at 12:42 by trousers

[sadoldgit]

25 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yeah, they should be back in their fields where they wouldn't be getting wet.... 🤦‍♂️

It’s okay, they have their £300 Barbours to keep them dry 😉

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

47 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Shame its raining in London, all those poor farmers getting wet

You illustrate the motives behind the budget well. A government targeting people because they don't like them. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

You illustrate the motives behind the budget well. A government targeting people because they don't like them. 

Horrible bitterness and envy on display from some on social media. Woeful lack of understanding of the issue too. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Horrible bitterness and envy on display from some on social media. Woeful lack of understanding of the issue too. 

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue. Family business, homes and way of life will have to fall by the wayside to pay tax. Add to the mix that our inability to be food self sufficient becomes more of a problem. And we get SoG banging on about the farmers coats. 

The cynic in me wonders if part of the motivation is to create land for housing, with a carbon offset being created to allow building by the land no longer being farmed. 

Regardless, some comments are ridiculous and show no empathy or understanding of the issue and the impact. 

[Turkish]

On 18/11/2024 at 13:10, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Fiona Bruce’s far right leanings have been there for all to see for years. Antiques Roadshow is basically racist, a yearning for a golden age that never existed.  the other week some white bloke brought along a letter from WW1 trenches & Fiona didn’t even mention the part played by ethnic soldiers in the Great War. Now she’s not pulling up a bloke when he gives his opinion on QT. No wonder Starmers opinion ratings are going  down quicker than Katie Price, look what he’s up against.

Keep fighting the fight, one post at a time, your impartiality will win out eventually . The public will eventually see the press for what it is, far right… 

if you want proof of her being far right here is her racism. Referring to a black guy in the crowd as a black guy then trying to justify it by saying she couldn't see any other identifying features. Truly abhorrent. 

 

[Turkish]

4 hours ago, trousers said:

^This

her finest hour

 

 

[Turkish]

45 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s okay, they have their £300 Barbours to keep them dry 😉

clueless. A top end barbour jacket might cost around £300 but the vast majority are around the £150-£200 mark. You can even get a quilted jacket for less than £100, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue. Family business, homes and way of life will have to fall by the wayside to pay tax. Add to the mix that our inability to be food self sufficient becomes more of a problem. And we get SoG banging on about the farmers coats. 

The cynic in me wonders if part of the motivation is to create land for housing, with a carbon offset being created to allow building by the land no longer being farmed. 

Regardless, some comments are ridiculous and show no empathy or understanding of the issue and the impact. 

Do I wade in on this issue or not? Hmmm...

Ok, so I haven't travelled up to London today as I am on the fence as to whether I agree with this or not. I have let some of my workers go though.

In general, for rural communities I don't. However there are many farmers selling off huge swathes of land for housing around us for millions. This is not right and is not the point of the agricultural land. It should be farmed, not built on.

Secondly, the people that will be affected by this are those with "Super farms" - those like the Clarkson estate. Some of these farms tend to be underwritten by the businesses purchasing from them, and these are the farmers that do have money.

However, I think the best option for this is that instead of paying inheritance tax on the handover, it should be levied as a charge against the agricultural holding for when any land is sold, so a further 20% on top of the Capital Gains is charged IF it is sold.

 

Edited Tuesday at 14:02 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Do I wade in on this issue or not? Hmmm...

Ok, so I haven't travelled up to London today as I am on the fence as to whether I agree with this or not. I have let some of my workers go though.

In general, for rural communities I don't. However there are many farmers selling off huge swathes of land for housing around us for millions. This is not right and is not the point of the agricultural land. It should be farmed, not built on.

Secondly, the people that will be affected by this are those with "Super farms" - those like the Clarkson estate. Some of these farms tend to be underwritten by the businesses purchasing from them, and these are the farmers that do have money.

However, I think the best option for this is that instead of paying inheritance tax on the handover, it should be levied as a charge against the agricultural holding for when any land is sold, so a further 20% on top of the Capital Gains is charged.

 

Thanks for the input. I have a friend who's business is basically a broker between farmers and major developers. He persuades farmers not to farm land that doesn't make them money anyway in return for a huge lump of cash. The land no longer being farmed creates a carbon offset to allow housing development elsewhere, and one can understand that the farmers will be encouraged to provide that development land. I'm not surprised to hear that it's happening now. 

I'm not a farmer, but looking from the outside I don't like that this way if life is going to end for many, and I also don't like that as a country were becoming less self sufficient. 

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Thanks for the input. I have a friend who's business is basically a broker between farmers and major developers. He persuades farmers not to farm land that doesn't make them money anyway in return for a huge lump of cash. The land no longer being farmed creates a carbon offset to allow housing development elsewhere, and one can understand that the farmers will be encouraged to provide that development land. I'm not surprised to hear that it's happening now. 

I'm not a farmer, but looking from the outside I don't like that this way if life is going to end for many, and I also don't like that as a country were becoming less self sufficient. 

I don't think it's going to be many family farms that are affected though - £3m is a fair old whack of agricultural land.

What it may mean is that larger family farms get purchased by businesses if they cannot afford to pay it (these large farms tend to have more headroom). They also have 10 years to pay it.

Edited Tuesday at 14:15 by Farmer Saint

[sadoldgit]

34 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

You illustrate the motives behind the budget well. A government targeting people because they don't like them. 

I don’t that this is true is it. The wealthy have done very well out of previous Tory governments. It is not unreasonable if the well to do shoulder some of the pain now is it? I don’t know if it is true, but it apparently will only affect a minority of farmers and Labour are also investing in farming in this budget. Three local farmers have taken to FB to support the march today, all three I know for a fact are minted. One in particular was very comfortably off before he passed away earlier this year but his family now have the benefit. The other two are asset rich in property and land but both still work to “pay the rent”. If they were to sell their assets they would be multi millionaires. I know not all farmers are minted and many work hard for little reward, but not all farmers will be affected by this inheritance tax.

I find it interesting to hear that when working class people complain about higher taxation they were told to stop their Netflix subscriptions, get rid of their smart phones, stop vaping and stop going to nail bars. Why doesn’t that apply to farmers, people who send their kids to private schools etc. why should making sacrifices just apply to the poorer in our society?

Taxes are already very high but we need more money to rebuild the NHS, public services and infrastructure, all the things that have been starved of cash whilst the previous government looked after the people they liked, to use your analogy. It seem quite reasonable to close tax loopholes does it not? Why should some people benefit from a system when most of our society don’t have that privilege? The inheritance tax is still half of what others pay for those who will have to pay it. If they are going after the people they don’t like they seem to be going about it in a half hearted way.

 

 

[sadoldgit]

56 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue. Family business, homes and way of life will have to fall by the wayside to pay tax. Add to the mix that our inability to be food self sufficient becomes more of a problem. And we get SoG banging on about the farmers coats. 

The cynic in me wonders if part of the motivation is to create land for housing, with a carbon offset being created to allow building by the land no longer being farmed. 

Regardless, some comments are ridiculous and show no empathy or understanding of the issue and the impact. 

It was a tongue in check comment but still pertinent. The machinery driving up and down the road here must cost millions. There are some people who make a very good living out of farming and there are some who struggle. My point is that you don’t see much sympathy from certain quarters in social media for those on benefits who can’t afford to wear a Barbour or look forward to having. £3m inheritance passed on to them.

We are led to believe that this will cripple farmers whereas Labour say it will only affect a small number. I don’t know which is true but am prepared to wait and see rather than just have a go at Labour because I voted for a party who only look after their mates.

Serious question. Did Dyson buy so much land because he was interesting in farmer or did he do it to avoid inheritance tax?

Edited Tuesday at 14:34 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

The last time I remember the country folk invading London was when fox hunting was banned (something that should have been banned long ago). We were told it was the slippery slope and that fishing would be next to be banned by the “Liberal Elite”. Guess what? It wasn’t and won’t be.

I have lived in the country for many years now and hear a lot about how Londoners don’t understand country life. I can tell you that many country folk don’t also understand what is going on outside the shires. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but have a feeling that it won’t be as catastrophic as some would have us believe.

Incidentally I do agree that we should be producing more of our own food. Sadly a lot of the land in East Kent is being sold off for vineyards.

Edited Tuesday at 14:54 by sadoldgit

[whelk]

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 
 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

[rooney]

The value of land prices have risen considerably since Thatcher brought in APR in 1984 because of that reason. The values are likely to plummet now so that most Farmers will not be liable to IHT and young people will have a chance of buying a farm which they are unable to do now.

[sadoldgit]

As it is most farmers will not have to pay it unless they have assets over £3m, and then they can spread the payments over 10 years.

I don’t know about you but I would love to give my kids an inheritance of £3m despite it being liable to tax.

Full info here

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/what-does-the-budget-really-mean-for-farming/

Edited Tuesday at 15:55 by sadoldgit

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As it is most farmers will not have to pay it unless they have assets over £3m, and then they can spread the payments over 10 years.

I don’t know about you but I would love to give my kids an inheritance of £3m despite it being liable to tax.

[sadoldgit]

If I could be bothered Delldays I would post a picture here of Andrew Tate for you

[iansums]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As it is most farmers will not have to pay it unless they have assets over £3m, and then they can spread the payments over 10 years.

I don’t know about you but I would love to give my kids an inheritance of £3m despite it being liable to tax.

Full info here

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/what-does-the-budget-really-mean-for-farming/

Is'nt the point that they are just assets, i.e., land, buildings, machinery etc. and therefore the only way to pay the IHT is to sell off some of the land?

[egg]

43 minutes ago, whelk said:

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

I think most farmers are "well off" in terms of their level of non disposable land and assets, but I've not met many that are well off in terms of disposable income or capital. They're definitely not well off from a work/life balance either. 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As it is most farmers will not have to pay it unless they have assets over £3m, and then they can spread the payments over 10 years.

I don’t know about you but I would love to give my kids an inheritance of £3m despite it being liable to tax.

Full info here

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/what-does-the-budget-really-mean-for-farming/

I think the issue is that they are asset rich and cash poor. Their land and buildings may be worth a lot but their income does not reflect that. They may have a barn that they store corn in that is worth £400k to be developed as a house but they use it for storing corn as part of their farm. If the children of the farmer have to sell of that barn to pay off their inheritance bill then the farm is no longer viable.

 

 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

48 minutes ago, whelk said:

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 
 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

Unfortunately the government have also nailed farmers on their pick up trucks by increasing the tax in them by than 200%.

[iansums]

55 minutes ago, whelk said:

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 
 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

Not sure train drivers is the best comparison.

[sadoldgit]

I wonder how many of the farmers on the march today voted for Brexit?

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I think the issue is that they are asset rich and cash poor. Their land and buildings may be worth a lot but their income does not reflect that. They may have a barn that they store corn in that is worth £400k to be developed as a house but they use it for storing corn as part of their farm. If the children of the farmer have to sell of that barn to pay off their inheritance bill then the farm is no longer viable.

 

 

Exactly. Incredibly obvious to anyone not soft in the head. Amazing that champions of the working man on the left are now seemingly in favour of corporations and big business who will be rubbing their hands at the chance to grab some of this land for themselves and further weaken our ability to feed ourselves. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I wonder how many of the farmers on the march today voted for Brexit?

[sadoldgit]

Worth reading

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rlk0d2vk2o.amp

Perhaps the farmers are protesting against the wrong thing?

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/eu-referendum/analysis-7-years-after-brexit-farmers-count-the-cost

Edited Tuesday at 16:31 by sadoldgit

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Do I wade in on this issue or not? Hmmm...

Ok, so I haven't travelled up to London today as I am on the fence as to whether I agree with this or not. I have let some of my workers go though.

In general, for rural communities I don't. However there are many farmers selling off huge swathes of land for housing around us for millions. This is not right and is not the point of the agricultural land. It should be farmed, not built on.

Secondly, the people that will be affected by this are those with "Super farms" - those like the Clarkson estate. Some of these farms tend to be underwritten by the businesses purchasing from them, and these are the farmers that do have money.

However, I think the best option for this is that instead of paying inheritance tax on the handover, it should be levied as a charge against the agricultural holding for when any land is sold, so a further 20% on top of the Capital Gains is charged IF it is sold.

 

Just a quick thanks for sharing your view on this.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 
 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

Have they protested about the rest of us paying the inheritance tax?  No of course not.

They don’t care about what I have to pay so I don’t care about them.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

As it is most farmers will not have to pay it unless they have assets over £3m, and then they can spread the payments over 10 years.

I don’t know about you but I would love to give my kids an inheritance of £3m despite it being liable to tax.

Full info here

https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/what-does-the-budget-really-mean-for-farming/

It’s not £3m though is it. Inheritance Tax has to be paid in £ notes and not in muddy furrows.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I would happily pay 45% tax if I knew the additional money raised would allow a farmer to get another 4x4.

Funny how the Sun views them when it views train drivers and doctors as over entitled lefties. Clarkson a typical Sun reader hero. 
 

I acknowledge I haven’t taken time to understand the details but has a farmer ever acknowledged they are comfortably well off?

In general farmers are not well off - 100% - and people like Clarkson have done a few things which juxtapose the current issues, but also give a warped view of what farmers and farming is as an industry.

1. Farming is very high risk, and is very high turnover but equally very high expenditure. Margins are tiny and are subject to huge variances based on the issues with hugely variable weather and the price of commodities and animals. Half your life you are farming hugely long hours and the other half you are trying to be a trader. It's damn hard graft.

2. A lot of rich people invest in farms, and people like Clarkson has made those outside farming think they are all rich mega landowners which just isn't true. Most are taking home less than £40k pa, without an income from a partner, as due to the unsociable hours there is certainly still a thing as a "farmers wife".

3. Farming is not just those that own farms - there are huge amounts of supporting contractors and supply chain that don't own farms or land that the public would call "farmers". They are not, and some of these people make huge amounts of money (agricultural contractors for one - these are the ones you see with £500k combines).

4. Yes, farmers tend to have nice tractors, but there is a reason for that. Tractors break. A lot. A tractor breaks at the wrong time and it can cost you 10s of thousands in revenue due to not being able to do work when you need to. It is imperitive that your equipment is reliable. Here is a picture of what happened to one of my friends brand new Massey's last year when chipping - £140k:

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 17:09 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

47 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I wonder how many of the farmers on the march today voted for Brexit?

Only the fucking stupid ones, and it also depends on what you class as "farmers".

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t that this is true is it. The wealthy have done very well out of previous Tory governments. It is not unreasonable if the well to do shoulder some of the pain now is it? I don’t know if it is true, but it apparently will only affect a minority of farmers and Labour are also investing in farming in this budget. Three local farmers have taken to FB to support the march today, all three I know for a fact are minted. One in particular was very comfortably off before he passed away earlier this year but his family now have the benefit. The other two are asset rich in property and land but both still work to “pay the rent”. If they were to sell their assets they would be multi millionaires. I know not all farmers are minted and many work hard for little reward, but not all farmers will be affected by this inheritance tax.

I find it interesting to hear that when working class people complain about higher taxation they were told to stop their Netflix subscriptions, get rid of their smart phones, stop vaping and stop going to nail bars. Why doesn’t that apply to farmers, people who send their kids to private schools etc. why should making sacrifices just apply to the poorer in our society?

Taxes are already very high but we need more money to rebuild the NHS, public services and infrastructure, all the things that have been starved of cash whilst the previous government looked after the people they liked, to use your analogy. It seem quite reasonable to close tax loopholes does it not? Why should some people benefit from a system when most of our society don’t have that privilege? The inheritance tax is still half of what others pay for those who will have to pay it. If they are going after the people they don’t like they seem to be going about it in a half hearted way.

 

 

The interesting thing is I would expect I am very close to you geographically and I would assume I know the farmers you are talking about. For instance I don't know any farmers who send their kids to private school - that is not a thing and in general farming children go to small country schools - private schools are frowned upon as you don't need them to go to agri college and most farmers want to keep farming in the family.