IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Our MP's family doing well out of EU Farm payouts, Huge sums doled out to Benyon's Englefield Trust
gel
post Feb 27 2011, 08:12 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 939
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



See

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...d-cover-up.html

Don't think he'll be too anti EU after seeing £this£..!
dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 09:43 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



It is a conundrum - if we have politicians with knowledge and insight of the issues they will be overseeing they will fall into the trap of being revealed as having taken part in the included activities. Do we want professional politicians who do the university/researcher/political assistant/councillor/MP route, or people from mixed backgrounds who bring their experience to public service?
Whatever route politicians follow they bring baggage. As one of the major rural employers in the area Mr Benyon hardly breaks the bank with a grant history to his company of £200k a year. Proportionally, hundreds of smallholders get more, on an individual basis.
Much is made of how much the EU costs the UK as a nett contributor, but we also make capital of a company actually claiming dues.

MPs of all persuasions will find it impossible to operate if they have to completely detach themselves from all and any real life situations - including the ennoblement of friends, the appointment to Office of previous employers etc.

The story about Mr B could be written about many other MPs, with different detail.

I am not an apologist for Mr B, just pointing out he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 09:43 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



It is a conundrum - if we have politicians with knowledge and insight of the issues they will be overseeing they will fall into the trap of being revealed as having taken part in the included activities. Do we want professional politicians who do the university/researcher/political assistant/councillor/MP route, or people from mixed backgrounds who bring their experience to public service?
Whatever route politicians follow they bring baggage. As one of the major rural employers in the area Mr Benyon hardly breaks the bank with a grant history to his company of £200k a year. Proportionally, hundreds of smallholders get more, on an individual basis.
Much is made of how much the EU costs the UK as a nett contributor, but we also make capital of a company actually claiming dues.

MPs of all persuasions will find it impossible to operate if they have to completely detach themselves from all and any real life situations - including the ennoblement of friends, the appointment to Office of previous employers etc.

The story about Mr B could be written about many other MPs, with different detail.

I am not an apologist for Mr B, just pointing out he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 27 2011, 10:33 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 27 2011, 09:43 AM) *
It is a conundrum - if we have politicians with knowledge and insight of the issues they will be overseeing they will fall into the trap of being revealed as having taken part in the included activities. Do we want professional politicians who do the university/researcher/political assistant/councillor/MP route, or people from mixed backgrounds who bring their experience to public service?
Whatever route politicians follow they bring baggage. As one of the major rural employers in the area Mr Benyon hardly breaks the bank with a grant history to his company of £200k a year. Proportionally, hundreds of smallholders get more, on an individual basis.
Much is made of how much the EU costs the UK as a nett contributor, but we also make capital of a company actually claiming dues.

MPs of all persuasions will find it impossible to operate if they have to completely detach themselves from all and any real life situations - including the ennoblement of friends, the appointment to Office of previous employers etc.

The story about Mr B could be written about many other MPs, with different detail.

I am not an apologist for Mr B, just pointing out he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.


All I would say is that the minister who looks after these payments has agreed to give up his payments for the duration of his term as minister. Maybe the other ministers at DEFRA could have done the same? The real issue though is why they have decided not to publish this information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 27 2011, 10:37 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I perceive Benyon MP as a Concervative MP before a Newbury MP - Mr Party Line. Just look at his feeble argument against AV for instance - utter party line. Being on the inside isn't all bad. I expect that we will get a more 'sympathetic' annual settlement than we would if we were 'represented' by a Lib Dem with a Labour government.

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 27 2011, 10:33 AM) *
The real issue though is why they have decided not to publish this information.

Because there are political opponents and electorate that would be offended?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 27 2011, 12:18 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 27 2011, 10:33 AM) *
All I would say is that the minister who looks after these payments has agreed to give up his payments for the duration of his term as minister. Maybe the other ministers at DEFRA could have done the same? The real issue though is why they have decided not to publish this information.


If as NWNReader states there is nothing wrong with receiving these payments then why is it being kept secret?

It just makes it seem tacky and underhand when a government tries to hide statistics such as these?

The argument that it reveals private individuals just does not stand up in most cases does it?

Reveal all I say? wink.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 01:38 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 27 2011, 12:18 PM) *
If as NWNReader states there is nothing wrong with receiving these payments then why is it being kept secret?

It just makes it seem tacky and underhand when a government tries to hide statistics such as these?

The argument that it reveals private individuals just does not stand up in most cases does it?

Reveal all I say? wink.gif


I don't say there is 'nothing' wrong with receiving the payments, just that they are seen in context. What I did set out was that the payments are legal and comparatively minor over a 10 year period and for a large business. The payments are legal, and while MPs use their knowledge to aid their work we are pleased; we can barely express horror that their position in the real world also leads to them having some 'benefit' extended to their environment. If it is ok to take free holidays with distinctly odd 'world leaders', drawing on an internationally agreed public fund by an associate business is surely no scandal?

Mr Benyon as an individual receives/received nothing. The individuals in the original case that led to the disclosure guidance was a smallholder - in some European countries these people really do take the biscuit for drawing on funds and are rightly (for themselves) seeking anonymity.
The reason the Govt of the UK decided to extend the ruling to companies, when they were specifically left out, is another case of the UK going OTT with 'compliance'. I do not agree that individuals should have their payments hidden, let alone companies.

Sorry if I am dense, but I don't se a 'story' in the article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Feb 27 2011, 03:02 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 377
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



It's just funny that he can take handouts from the EU, but yet when a constituent writes to him saying the change in the unversial benefits is not fair, his response back is there are hard choices to make and somebody's gotta take the fall. (paraphrase).

If he is a "farmer" who is entitled to these EU perks, then to be honest it should be a conflict of interest to sit as DEFRA minster, especially when they tried to block info on who was getting what..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 27 2011, 03:07 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 27 2011, 01:38 PM) *
I don't say there is 'nothing' wrong with receiving the payments, just that they are seen in context. What I did set out was that the payments are legal and comparatively minor over a 10 year period and for a large business. The payments are legal, and while MPs use their knowledge to aid their work we are pleased; we can barely express horror that their position in the real world also leads to them having some 'benefit' extended to their environment. If it is ok to take free holidays with distinctly odd 'world leaders', drawing on an internationally agreed public fund by an associate business is surely no scandal?

Mr Benyon as an individual receives/received nothing. The individuals in the original case that led to the disclosure guidance was a smallholder - in some European countries these people really do take the biscuit for drawing on funds and are rightly (for themselves) seeking anonymity.
The reason the Govt of the UK decided to extend the ruling to companies, when they were specifically left out, is another case of the UK going OTT with 'compliance'. I do not agree that individuals should have their payments hidden, let alone companies.

Sorry if I am dense, but I don't se a 'story' in the article.


Large wealthy Companies and individual farmers getting European handouts?

Elderly, unemployed, and vulnerable getting benefits and resources cut?

And you are unable to see a story in the article? blink.gif




--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 05:07 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Feb 27 2011, 03:02 PM) *
It's just funny that he can take handouts from the EU, but yet when a constituent writes to him saying the change in the unversial benefits is not fair, his response back is there are hard choices to make and somebody's gotta take the fall. (paraphrase).

If he is a "farmer" who is entitled to these EU perks, then to be honest it should be a conflict of interest to sit as DEFRA minster, especially when they tried to block info on who was getting what..


'He' has taken nothing from the EU. The company that operates the family business has taken grants it is entitled to. Or are you suggesting he has subverted that money for his own use?

I'd rather like the EU to reduce the handouts too.
As outlined previously - if someone brings experience to the table are they automatically having conflict of interest when they use that experience? Would we really prefer professional politicians with no experience of real life - who would then employ consultants for every issue?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 05:12 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 27 2011, 03:07 PM) *
Large wealthy Companies and individual farmers getting European handouts?

Elderly, unemployed, and vulnerable getting benefits and resources cut?

And you are unable to see a story in the article? blink.gif


Where are they mentioned in the article? Are you saying no benefits should be reduced?

European handouts is a far more contentious issue. The proportion of benefit Englefield Estates have received over 10 years is not enough to pay for anything you have angst about.

I would happily see the level of EU CAP handouts reduced substantially as they are a farce.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Feb 27 2011, 06:00 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 377
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



QUOTE
More than 100,000 British farmers were paid the majority of the £3 billion available in EU farming subsidies for last year.


How much of that 3 billion came from the UK only to go back to the UK, and how much of it went to folks just like our local MP?

Of the 200k our local MP received, how many local centers or services to be cut would be saved this year?

QUOTE
he is rather between the rock and the hard place, along with numerous others.


Poor dinkins, that's a place I wish I could be in :-)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 06:09 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Feb 27 2011, 06:00 PM) *
How much of that 3 billion came from the UK only to go back to the UK, and how much of it went to folks just like our local MP?

Of the 200k our local MP received, how many local centers or services to be cut would be saved this year?



Poor dinkins, that's a place I wish I could be in :-)

Unfortunately for the case you seek to make, Mr B received none of the money. The business received the grant. As the UK pays more to the EU than it gets from it, the sum is more a rebate than a gift.

I do not think there is a way funds can be donated to a Local Authority so that a post/facility is kept open.

My point is there is no real link between EU grants to a business and the debate over whether local facilities could be retained and budget issues delivered. Certainly not in the simple way some imply.

The 'rock and a hard place' comment was about being damned for bringing experience to the table or for knowing nothing about the subject and making (even more) crass decisions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Feb 27 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 377
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 27 2011, 06:09 PM) *
Unfortunately for the case you seek to make, Mr B received none of the money. The business received the grant. As the UK pays more to the EU than it gets from it, the sum is more a rebate than a gift.

I do not think there is a way funds can be donated to a Local Authority so that a post/facility is kept open.

My point is there is no real link between EU grants to a business and the debate over whether local facilities could be retained and budget issues delivered. Certainly not in the simple way some imply.

The 'rock and a hard place' comment was about being damned for bringing experience to the table or for knowing nothing about the subject and making (even more) crass decisions.


The business that he is an owner of. So people pay taxes, some of it goes to the EU, which in turn goes back to the UK. How much is lost in that round trip. The real link is that how much of it goes to those rich farmers who don't really need it. You don't think there is a way the funds can be donated to a local authority, how about a personal check.

The rich keep getting richer, as the old boys keep patting themselves on the back. The rest of us bear the brunt of these old boys and their ways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Feb 27 2011, 07:03 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,927
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Feb 27 2011, 06:00 PM) *
Of the 200k our local MP received, how many local centers or services to be cut would be saved this year?

Not £200k but £2million
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 27 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



There's debate to be had about the CAP, but this isn't it. This story is about Richard Benyon coming from a wealthy family. Good luck to him I say. He's a decent enough MP - and I'm hugely grateful for the decision he took over the eagle owls and that alone will probably win him my vote.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 27 2011, 08:53 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



£200k a year goes to the MP's business. If he is entitled to it, fine. But why is he and hismates at DEFRA trying to hide these payments?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 27 2011, 09:15 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 27 2011, 08:04 PM) *
There's debate to be had about the CAP, but this isn't it. This story is about Richard Benyon coming from a wealthy family. Good luck to him I say. He's a decent enough MP - and I'm hugely grateful for the decision he took over the eagle owls and that alone will probably win him my vote.

Yes, but he would have had a difficult time going against the opinion of the RSPB.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 09:52 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Feb 27 2011, 06:55 PM) *
The business that he is an owner of. So people pay taxes, some of it goes to the EU, which in turn goes back to the UK. How much is lost in that round trip. The real link is that how much of it goes to those rich farmers who don't really need it. You don't think there is a way the funds can be donated to a local authority, how about a personal check.

The rich keep getting richer, as the old boys keep patting themselves on the back. The rest of us bear the brunt of these old boys and their ways.


I gather he has severed his involvement in the company. What would you have someone do, delete their past entirely? Not realistic, whoever they are.

Too much EU money by far is wasted and syphoned off.

There are so many EU grants available, so without knowing which ones the Company claimed it is hard to say whether the funds were needed. Many living in the area will tell of the way the family contributes to the local community, so I suspect the money could well have benefitted more than just the individuals who 'own' the family business.

I said funds cannot be donated to a specific activity. If anyone can give money to WBC - and I do not know if the rules allow that - such funds almost certainly cannot be 'to keep a youth club open'. Having been a volunteer in a Council owned facility for many years I know only too well the crazy bureaucracy that restricts ways of creating income.

I think your bitterness is preventing you see the wider issues that exist. I am not rich (I wish!!) I have to take extra work to keep my head above water. I'd love to have access to allowances and expenses to enhance my income, but the rules I work under do not provide any. That does not mean someone with a different employment may not claim proper expenses etc they do have access to. It also doesn't mean I ignore greed by those people.

From what I know/see/believe, Mr Benyon is not a good target for the investigative journalists - there are far meatier candidates for 'exposure'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 27 2011, 09:55 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 27 2011, 08:53 PM) *
£200k a year goes to the MP's business. If he is entitled to it, fine. But why is he and hismates at DEFRA trying to hide these payments?


They should not be when the payments are made to a business, according to the case summary that led to the policy. For years the UK Government has been OTT on the application and enforcement of EU missives. I do not know what part Mr Benyon had in the decision - probably drafted by a Civil Servant, and maybe (?) before his tenure.

It is no longer his business.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2020 - 04:01 AM