Newbury MP absent from crucial government funding vote, because it looked quite favourably on certain areas! Options

[Andy Capp]

It seems Mr Benyon didn't vote against then government because he saw the benefits to other districts which looked quite favourably on them. Or was it that he didn't want to look like a 'bad' Tory?

Explaining his decision, he said: “I didn’t want to vote against the national settlement because it looked quite favourably on certain areas. However, I simply couldn’t support it because of what is was doing to West Berkshire. "Therefore I decided simply not to vote. I was in the building but didn’t take part in the vote. It was the first time in eight years that I have not supported the Government.”

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/17...government.html

[Cognosco]

It seems Mr Benyon didn't vote against then government because he saw the benefits to other districts which looked quite favourably on them. Or was it that he didn't want to look like a 'bad' Tory?

Explaining his decision, he said: “I didn’t want to vote against the national settlement because it looked quite favourably on certain areas. However, I simply couldn’t support it because of what is was doing to West Berkshire. "Therefore I decided simply not to vote. I was in the building but didn’t take part in the vote. It was the first time in eight years that I have not supported the Government.”

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/17...government.html

He obviously takes no notice or consideration of his electorate then?
He takes more consideration of other areas?
So much for representing his own constituency?

[Simon Kirby]

He obviously takes no notice or consideration of his electorate then?
He takes more consideration of other areas?
So much for representing his own constituency?

In point of fact a rather large majority of the electorate voted Tory for just these kind of cuts.

[Andy Capp]

In point of fact a rather large majority of the electorate voted Tory for just these kind of cuts.

Who knows why people vote the way they do. I doubt that many voted with an informed opinion. Cuts were implied rather than set-out.

[newres]

Who knows why people vote the way they do. I doubt that many voted with an informed opinion. Cuts were implied rather than set-out.

I doubt many vote with an informed opinion full stop. Rather like the rerendum.

[Simon Kirby]

Who knows why people vote the way they do. I doubt that many voted with an informed opinion. Cuts were implied rather than set-out.

The streets aren't full of blue-rinsers protesting the loss of social services. Conservatives don't like collectivism unless it's for services they themselves use. Yes, you'll get some crocodile tears frol the Tory politicos because they don't like being cast as the nasty party, but they're not so distressed that they're going to forego their 16.5% increase in their allowances or a turn with the dressing-up box.

[On the edge]

It a vote was a mortgage, a good few would be screaming mis-selling.

I'm sure a good number of people say they regret what they did at the election; in exactly the same way that a majority oft miners claimed to be opposed to Arthur Scargill.

[Biker1]

In point of fact a rather large majority of the electorate voted Tory for just these kind of cuts.

Not a large majority, I would say more a significant number. Enough to get him elected anyway.

[Biker1]

He obviously takes no notice or consideration of his electorate then?
He takes more consideration of other areas?
So much for representing his own constituency?

And other MP's / politicians differ from this?

[Cognosco]

And other MP's / politicians differ from this?

Generally no! There is legislation for trading standards and miss selling etc but politicians can lie and obfuscate better than all yet get away with it .......why?

[Simon Kirby]

Not a large majority, I would say more a significant number. Enough to get him elected anyway.

Sorry, I wasn't really making a distinction between the blue and yellow Tories.

[blackdog]

Not a large majority, I would say more a significant number. Enough to get him elected anyway.

Locally a large majority (over 60%), nationally the largest minority (about 33% IIRC).

For a steady party man like Richard Benyon to not vote according to the party whip is a rebellion.

[Cognosco]

Locally a large majority (over 60%), nationally the largest minority (about 33% IIRC).

For a steady party man like Richard Benyon to not vote according to the party whip is a rebellion.

What like saying oh poop is swearing?

[Turin Machine]

Sorry, I wasn't really making a distinction between the blue and yellow Tories.

You old socialist review reader you

[Phil_D11102]

He obviously takes no notice or consideration of his electorate then?
He takes more consideration of other areas?
So much for representing his own constituency?

He doesn't care about his constituents.

Ask him how he will vote about leaving the EU? How will the UK cope without farming and environmental subsidies?

[Berkshirelad]

He doesn't care about his constituents.

Ask him how he will vote about leaving the EU? How will the UK cope without farming and environmental subsidies?

Why do farming and environmental subsidies have to come from the EU?

We used to manage quite well when it was decided in country with the aid of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

Leaving the EU doesn't necessitate the cessation of subsidies - just cut out the middleman of EU bureaucracy and target the needs better. And take back control of UK fishing grounds.

[blackdog]

Why do farming and environmental subsidies have to come from the EU?

We used to manage quite well when it was decided in country with the aid of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

Leaving the EU doesn't necessitate the cessation of subsidies - just cut out the middleman of EU bureaucracy and target the needs better. And take back control of UK fishing grounds.

Leaving the EU means doing a deal with the EU on subsidies - or not selling agricultural produce to EU countries. Odds are we would have to sign up to the EU system we already have and end up contributing for the CAP while losing any ability to change it.

[Simon Kirby]

Leaving the EU means doing a deal with the EU on subsidies - or not selling agricultural produce to EU countries. Odds are we would have to sign up to the EU system we already have and end up contributing for the CAP while losing any ability to change it.

Precisely.

[Simon Kirby]

Why do farming and environmental subsidies have to come from the EU?

We used to manage quite well when it was decided in country with the aid of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

Leaving the EU doesn't necessitate the cessation of subsidies - just cut out the middleman of EU bureaucracy and target the needs better. And take back control of UK fishing grounds.

I've never heard a compelling reason for farm subsidies, if it was up to me I'd let the free market reign. I do however feel that it is necessary to set high animal welfare and environmental standards, and only allow imports of agricultural products from producers signed up to the same standards.

That said I do feel that food security is a problem, and has been ever since the inter-war years when the UK essentially gave up on domestic agriculture and started relying on imports from the Americas. If domestic food producers just can't compete in a free market with Ireland for milk and Spain for tomatoes and New Zealand for onions, Denmark for bacon, etc then I'm sort of saying fair enough, let those businesses fail, but without domestic agricultural production we are very exposed and reliant on producers who might not always be that friendly towards us, in the same way as we are exposed by our lack of energy security. But on balance I would still like to see a free market with the full cost of production passed on to consumers.

[blackdog]

The free market sounds like a nice idea - but it doesn't really exist on any but the smallest scale.

First you impose animal welfare and workforce and customer health and safety requirements on the farmer - I doubt that many would complain about this, but the market is no longer free once such conditions are imposed.

Then you put the bulk of retail in the hands of a few massive supermarket chains and the farmers' ability to sell in a free market has gone.

Your concept of a free market with the full cost of production passed on to consumers isn't a free market at all, it is a market constrained by conditions and controls.

Market forces are a useful tool with which to improve efficiency and lower costs, but they have no humanity and no social conscience - which is why I am in favour of government (UK or EU) interference, for all its many faults.