This story doesn't seem to have received much coverage locally:

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

Interesting that it was run by the Daily Mail. They do rather seem to have it in for Prime Minister Dave and his pals.

Thoughts, anyone?

Hardly secret or hidden is it? Not surprised nothing was made of it locally - it's not exactly a story. Its the family business that's gained here - not him personally. At least it maintains jobs in West Berkshire. Anyway, about time some English farmers started to benefit.

The story isn't about who gained anything though, it's about the attempted cover up.

Must've been a quiet day for news, as this non-story ran last year and was discussed on here at length.....

It would seem we went to great lengths to try to 'protect' the recipients of the bonus.

Yeah, the Daily Mail... of course, the integrity that paper has accumulated over the years...read almost exclusively by racist everything seems to mention immigrants, the EU or Princess Diana..

It's a classic example of why information should be made public. By hiding things (or attempting to hide them) DEFRA and it's ministers are easily accused of corruption.

It would be interesting to see if Benyon declared any interests in any meetings associated with the issue. If he failed to declare interests in these issues then he could quite rightly be accused of inappropriate behaviour and even corruption.

Why are the farm subsidies paying up for very rich estates? Time for reform of the CAP.

"Mr Benyon has declared his family business in the Commons register of interests. ... Mr Benyon resigned his chairmanship of the family business, Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited, when he became a Minister"

What the article says is that the EU only required the privacy of individuals be upheld, but the government went further and protected the privacy of industrial farming enterprises, such as the Englefield Estate.

'Resigning Chairmanship' is different from 'not receiving benefit from'.

I was unaware of the coverage of this here last year. As I say, it's interesting that the Mail should pick up on this. Perhaps Cameron and co aren't quite right wing enough for them but the Mail have run some really good campaigns - notably the long term one related to the prosecution of Steven Lawrence's murderers.

On the EU handouts, it does seem a little hypocritical that Englefield should be taking so much taxpayer's money at a time when such severe cuts are being pushed through by the government to which Mr Benyon belongs.

We long ago gave up the idea that we should be self sufficient in food in this country so I fail to see why we are giving handouts to farmers but not, for example, to town centre retailers. And even if a handout is available surely there's no compulsion to actually fill in the form and take it?

It is in fact, but his interests receiving the money isn't the issue, it is the government's 'eagerness' to protect those that have received it that is concerning.

The attempted cover up was down to the Civil Servants - who would doubtless claim they were simply trying to be 'helpful'. The three main parties all say they want 'open government' - but its the hired help that stops it.

So its a bit rich to throw words like corruption about which simply devalues the word and the argument.

Of course, our own dear local Council isn't exactly immune from such behaviour - covering up all sorts of things we really ought to know about.

Almost exactly a year.......

What difference does it make whether it has been reported before or not? I assume the issue still exists, and I think these things should be kept in the public's consciousness.

Reported, and discussed. I wonder at the motivation for raising it again (I don't like to assume, but I trust the story has developed in some way since last year).
There will be many farmer MPs in the same situation. What makes the Benyon situation so attractive to the DM?

Higher profile subject?

Given the range of 'interests' MPs will have, I wonder if that is so? That he is the highest profile Member?
I see nothing added to the story run last year that makes the situation any more sinister.

To maintain the veil of secrecy, where one might not be necessary could be one reason. There is a growing concern that the government might be seeking to increase secrecy in some areas.

I find it funny that he has no issue ensuring his family receives "subsidies" but the rest of us will lose benefits. I will lose 134 quid a month in child benefits based on my income, which will be no where what his family receives.

Double standards at it's best.

You too can be a Daily Mail editor

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

What else do you call it then? It's ok for him to and his famil to reap the rewards of the various benefit systems, and at alot more than the average Joe gets, but the rest of us can get scr*wed..

Buy a farm, then.....

There you go.

Lets see, let me buy a farm, get loads of migrants workers in under the new gov't plan to put people back to work, which I think the gov't will subsidise. Claim EU farm benefits, get more free cash. The I can pack it in after 5 or so years, but first sneakingly transfer the money into someone else's account so I can start claiming benefits.

Of I continue to try and retain the only universal benefit my family is entitled to. But I must not question why the man who is representing us in the Commons is collecting 1000 times plus more than in EU benefits, but is supporting cutting off 134 quid a month.

Is he?

Quite. A bit of a strong allegation there by Phil, methinks.

But he, like you, will be losing the child benefit he receives (probably more than £134 a month).

I suspect he'll cope.

Not much point in a debate here - Tories and their Etonian pets will vote the same way (though say different things to keep their core voters happy) and Labour are just hoping to stay part of the debate.

But the debate is a bit of ideology. You either want to pursue privatisation (through one route or another) or you don't. Add the generalisation that, Tory members (the 1% at least) stand to gain the most through privatisation, Labour voters stand to loose the most as cost/wages/people are driven out. You could also add to the mix the pressure of donors to the various parties - which party stands to gain the most and loose the most financially.

There must be a formula out there somewhere that works out who gains what?

If you need me to help subsidise your family perhaps you can't afford to have one.

Who will support you and your children, if you or they ever need it?

To me , "loose" means not tight. Do you mean "lose" as in not to have anymore?

I think this forum demonstrates some of the qualities one must have if one wishes to enter politics: you have to contend with some of the electorate who seem to be still stuck in the playground.


'tis no-wonder people don't bother.

Yes, I did over estimate a little bit. What was received in the 10 years in EU subsidies is only about 600 times more than what we would receive in 22 years if both kids stayed on in full time education.



You don't get it do you..

One earner family over 42K loses, while two earners making 40K each keep their benefits. Show me how that is fair.

The best one is I don't get the benefit, my wife is the one who receives it. My wife makes less than 6000 a year as she works 3 hours a day part time and doesn't claim tax credits. This is the only tax credit/benefit that is received in the household.

You use your private medical benefits, your taxed on them. I got a 3 percent pay raise last year, but I take home less and I am spending more on the basics.

At what point is enough enough?

Yeah well my heart bleeds for you, it really does. I mean its not like anyone else is suffering is it?

What a bigotted view you have. Perhaps you should go down to newsagents and advise all
those who buy the paper that they're racists; I bet you the majority will be shocked to hear that, & the odd few will flatten you.

Wow, if that doesn't sound like sarcasm what does..

There are other ways to raise revenue other that continually hitting the pockets of the families. They won't revamp the tax system because it would be to hard, or complicated to do so.

One that I suggested months ago is for tourists to pay 5 pound visa fee when they land in the UK. With the Olympics coming up that would raise a fair bit of money. How about 25 pounds for a student visa.

Shame no one in the gov't has had the foresight to do so.

Maybe those affected by this change, some 15 percent of the population should just strike and protest, then what would the impact to the economy be?

Yes, I wonder how the ecconomy would cope without all those middle-managers.

I think you will find that most skilled I.T. jobs fall into the 45 to 50K range. How would it be that all the major computer systems in the UK would stop for one day..

Then you would put yourself in the same camp as Bob Crow and his cronies, threatening to hold the country to ransom if British Rail tried to make any efficiency savings.

Which allegedly is what the governemnt were worried the RBS board of directors would do if their HUGE bonuses were not honoured.

What would you suggest, writing to the MP's? I did that one and got a somebody's gotta suck it up letter in response.

If there was some sort of fairness to this madness, then direct action would not be an answer. However, the decision seems to have been made without any sort of consultation. I am tired of constantly being hit for more and more and getting less and less in return.

Has the NWN or the WBC actually done a study and find out how many household's the loss of child benefit will affect in this area? I would imagine this area would be hit pretty good, not that our MP cares, or show's he cares.

If I don't act on my behalf, who then will???

OK, so how about retired people like me with savings who have been hit since March 2009 with a record low interest rate of 0.5%, while people like you (presumably) with mortgages have been enjoying vast benefits from the same low rates.

There are swings and roundabouts with everything. As an aside, do you have the figures for the percentage of the population that benefits from the "dual income less than 40%" anomaly? I agree that's not totally fair, but how many does it affect?

There are other ways to invest money other than savings. Have you looked into that, and I would assume you would benefit from the tax breaks as well.

As for the dual incomes that less than 40%, I am not sure of the number, but they are already paying less tax already, and still keeping their child benefits, as well as probably getting tax credits...

Simple answer is to abolish all child benefit. Simple really. Stop the inherent unfairness. I thought people had kids cos they wanted them, not to get the cash benefits. People will go back to stuffing them up chimneys to make up the shortfall.

How many people whinging about this have 2 cars ,flat screens, and still manage to go out to the pub I wonder. Need or want, there is a difference.

And a certain overpowering primeval instinct.


There's not enough menial work for adults, let alone kids!


Judging by the 'government's pub closure program': not many!

Good point.

If the gov't would change the tax laws and have children as a deduction, thus lowing the the tax I pay (as in the U.S.), then yes, abolish the child benefit.

We use our child benefit for things such as paying for our oldest's bus fare, as the WBC doesn't provide a bus you would expect with the money paid via council tax. Also, there are things such as braces, and the impeding amount of money we will be paying for their university education.

Two cars are needed in our household, as I use my car to go to work as it's more cost effective than using public transport. BTW, what's a pub. We are lucky if we can afford one day out a month with the kids.

I really am grateful for being able to afford a home, food, and ensuring my kids are clothed properly. I would imagine that I could cut back on the amount of money (3%) I put into my pension each month, but then what would be the effect in the long term?

However when you start to single out a sector of the country without putting alot of thought into what is fair, that is when people start to get angry.

Phil, you're argument is flailing so wildly it's hard to give it much serious thought. I believe both in free public transport to school and that the state should pay university fees and a subsistence allowance, but only for the brightest 5% with everyone else doing on-the-job training, but goodness, that's two complex arguments there and we haven't even got to child benefit. Explain to me why I should be taxed to pay for your child benefit because from where I'm standing I can't for the life of me see why you're more deserving of my hard-earned cash than I am, and if you can explain to me what it's got to do with Richard Benyon's farm subsidy that would be good too.

Perhaps he thinks giving a little bit now, to support the generation that will be working in twenty years time and therefore who's tax will be supporting those who are retired then, is a positive thing.

But he's taking not giving. I just hav a mental image of people standing with a pregnancy testing kit in one hand and a "how to claim your benefits" booklet in the other.