The government’s partial U-turn on what opponents dubbed the “farms tax” was a Christmas present for those who had campaigned against the imposition of 20% inheritance tax from next April.
About half the farms that would have been affected will now be exempt.
But given that minsters had defended the policy in the 14 months since last year’s Budget, the questions are: Why change it? And why now?
Sustained protests – the regular convoys of tractors, horns blaring, converging on Parliament Square – certainly played a part.
The National Farmers’ Union which had organised the noisy demonstrations had also engaged in quieter diplomacy behind the scenes with Downing Street and the agriculture department. It has been reported that discussions shifted to mitigating rather than obliterating the policy completely.
But there are other factors.
A consequence of last year’s landslide Labour election victory is that more of the party’s MPs represent rural and semi-rural seats.
Behind closed doors, some of them had been pressing hard for concessions.
While only one voted against, more than 30 of them actively abstained on a parliamentary vote on the inheritance tax policy earlier this month to demonstrate their concerns.
Beyond this, the reasons for the timing of the government’s volte face are speculative.
One of the rural rebels told me that conversations with ministers had been more positive this month – though they had not been told in advance of yesterday’s announcement.
And some believe that Sir Keir Starmer’s appearance this month before the liaison committee – which consists of senior MPs who chair cross-party parliamentary committees – played a role.
He was subjected to uncomfortable questioning by the Labour MP Cat Smith and the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, both of whom in effect suggested some farmers were contemplating suicide – or as Smith put it, “actively planning to expedite their own deaths” – before inheritance tax was introduced next April so they could pass on their family farms.
The prospect of personal tragedies – and awful headlines – was made very clear to the prime minister.
Downing Street is keen to get on the front foot when MPs return to Parliament in January, and dispelling this particular political dark cloud might have been regarded as an essential precursor.
The Conservatives maintain that the policy change was “sneaked out” while MPs were away and could not subject ministers to scrutiny.
A recess reversal certainly does not radiate confidence from a government that has 400 of parliament’s 650 seats.
While some Labour MPs are relieved that the government has listened, others are wondering why it persisted with a policy that was going to raise relatively little revenue.
This change is going to cost £130m. To put that in context, it is a tiny fraction of the around £900bn generated in total in taxation annually.
And of course with Labour trailing in the polls, there are concerns about the government’s ability to make the political weather.
Something of a modus operandi is emerging where revenue raising policies are announced by the Treasury, then there is a public backlash, and internal Labour discontent followed some time later by a partial reversal once the political damage has been sustained.
Think winter fuel, welfare reform and now family farms.
The policies may have changed but questions over political judgment remain.