Thread by @TorstenBell

Here’s a short story about who wins and loses from the status quo of our inheritance tax rules - and about, what you might politely call ‘sub-optimal’ journalism🧵

On 19 November, the Times ran a ‘news’ piece on the demonstration in Westminster by farmers opposed to changes to inheritance tax. Obviously reporting the news is good, but reading such a one sided piece made me think it belonged in the comment pages thetimes.com/uk/environment…

In it they tell the story of John Kemp-Welch. Here’s how he’s described: “Kemp-Welch, 88, who owns 5,000 acres of "difficult hill farming land" in Perthshire where he and his children farm blackface sheep.”

Clear impression is of someone who’s given their life to farming. They quote him sympathetically saying “It's not easy. Farming in Scotland is very tough but we are determined to go on."

They even include a nice photo of him.

What they don’t mention is anything else about John Kemp-Welch, beyond presenting him as a struggling farmer

Now maybe this is a different John Kemp-Welch… but in that case it’s a big coincidence that another 88 year old John Kemp-Welch managed to be chair of the London Stock Exchange from 1994 to 2000

Before that? He spent over three decades at the stockbroker Cazenove. After his period at the stock exchanges he joined the board of HSBC.

The Times might have decided not to mention any of this but Companies House confirms that this is one and the same person …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/iBGkA…

Now John Kemp-Welch has’t done anything wrong. He’s completely entitled to protest against a tax change that would be costly to him. Many people would do the same.

But our ‘paper of record’ might want to at least consider the fact that stockbroker, banker, or businessmen would be better labels, at least to sit alongside that of ‘farmer’

This is just a gentle reminder of who the status quo inheritance tax wise works for (there’s a reason the very largest estates pay less than some far smaller) & that proper facts should form part of proper journalism when reporting an entirely legit inheritance tax debate

Afterall, the Times also managed to publish an entire article on James Dyson opposing this change without once mentioning that he reportedly owns more land than the monarch…