Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 7 2013, 11:09 AM

"Among those to resign include Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon. He tweeted: "On back benches! Three and half really fun years with much achieved. Really appreciate time working with outstanding ministers and officials."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24427138

Now what can we slag him off for?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 12:03 PM

Shame, he was one of the better ones and, for once, someone who knew his brief.

Posted by: ivan i Oct 7 2013, 12:44 PM

According to the BBC the title of this thread should be "Benyon Sacked" !

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2013, 01:05 PM

The same things we've always done.

Posted by: DJE Oct 7 2013, 01:29 PM

The rules, keeping secret how many hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money in benefits, his family and trust gets from the CAP each year, have been introduced.

His work in the ministry of agriculture is done.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 7 2013, 01:41 PM

One of the better ones? One of the better front benchers, or fisheries ministers? Either way I am inclined to disagree.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 03:12 PM

Well with all his faults; much better than the nonentity we had before.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 7 2013, 03:28 PM

Can you remind us who that was?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2013, 03:40 PM

I think it is difficult to judge either way. What is sure is he was loyal to his party and 'towed the line' accordingly. Whether he did what is right for the country is debatable. He has 'http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/benyon-defends-badger-cull-plans', 'http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/fury-at-minister-richard-benyons-astounding-refusal-to-ban-deadly-bird-poison-8215803.html', 'http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/richard-benyon-the-birdbrained-minister-7794159.html', and 'http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/27/richard-benyon-family-food-waste_n_3169091.html' hanging over him.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 04:10 PM

Oh right, so he gets the chop for defending Tory policies! Cameron has learned from his coalition partners; the townies are always right - so he had to go. Loyalty, stuff that.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 7 2013, 04:44 PM

Not forgetting selling the mineral rights to the AONB in Kingsclere that turned out to be his!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2013, 06:15 PM

I'm not sure it is known why he 'jumped before he was pushed', so who can say. He was a 'good Tory', but whether he was politicly astute is another matter.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 07:02 PM

If by politically astute you mean he follows today's definition - simply saying what Central office put out, no matter what, then no he's not. Sadly, in spite of protests to the contrary, we don't actually like politicians who are willing to give voice to their own convictions. Vanilla is such a sensible choice.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 07:06 PM

That famous old Tory, Winston Churchill supported the notion that history repeats itself. Anyone remember another Tory leader, of fairly recent times of whom it was said (adapting a biblical quote) 'greater love hath no man than he lay down his friends for his life'. Is this David Cameron's MacMillan Moment?

Posted by: James_Trinder Oct 7 2013, 07:23 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Irranca-Davies

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2013, 07:37 PM

I completely understand, but I feel that Mr Benyon is more an 'obedient' Tory than anything else. What disappointed me with him is that he usually failed to explain why he or his department made some of the choices that they did. I was also uncomfortable that he presided over policies that conflicted with his background, if not his interest. I realise that is true of many MPs, but his estate and the activities within it benefited from a number of initiatives he presided over.

I do admit that we 'force' MPs to be guarded with their views, because if they were completely candid, they would never get voted for.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2013, 08:37 PM

Wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 8 2013, 09:30 AM

Fascinating postscript, supplied by BBC news link. Apparently LibDem online journal says they want to put 'clear yellow water' between them and the Tories! I knew it, LibDem policies are all pure piss!

Posted by: blackdog Oct 8 2013, 11:02 AM

It's an odd dilemma, do you want a minister who actually knows something about the operations of his department - in which case this sort of conflict of interest will usually crop up, or someone who is clueless about the department, and hence will do pretty much whatever his boss, or his civil servants tell him to do. I can see the attraction of the latter to the party leadership.

It should be pointed out that the family estate also lost out financially as a result of some of the initiatives he was responsible for.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2013, 12:06 PM

What were they?

One problem I have had with Mr Benyon is his apparent lack of transparency. With some of the things previously mentioned, he never really gave convincing reason(s) for his actions.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 8 2013, 04:29 PM

I'm quite curious as to which policies led to a loss for the estate's finances as well!

Posted by: Strafin Oct 8 2013, 04:30 PM

Also, is it true that he was actually sacked?

Posted by: blackdog Oct 9 2013, 08:49 AM

The main one is the abolition of the Single Farm Payment and its replacement with the Basic Payment Scheme - the Englefield Trust has famously received 'millions' through the SFP. Around £200k a year. The proposed new scheme caps payments to the biggest claimants - reducing what they get by up to 100%. £200k is one of the dividing points in the scheme - if they got more than £200k they will get 40% less, if not it will be a 20% cut. If their payment was as much as £250k it would mean an 70% cut and those who got over £300k in the past will get nothing under the new scheme.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 9 2013, 09:10 AM

He has been replaced by someone who failed in a previous attempt to be elected as a UKIP candidate. So, a man of principle then.

Posted by: Lolly Oct 9 2013, 02:20 PM

Who? And is changing political party abandoning your principles, or making a principled decision?

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 9 2013, 02:25 PM

Churchill did it twice, that makes him twice as bad.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 05:02 PM

It rather depends.

Changing party because your politics is sufficiently at adds with that of the party you once joined isn't especially principled, it's just obvious. It would simply be perverse to be a member of a political party whose politics you didn't agree with.

Leaving a party over a single issue when you otherwise agree with the party's politics might reasonably be described as a principled decision, especially if you leave behind the personal and social benefits of party membership.

However, moving from one party to another because your political ambition is likely better served in the other party is pretty shallow and unprincipled.