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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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?

You old socialist review reader you

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.

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.

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.

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.

A free market is one where the market sets the price of the products without any state interference, it does not mean that there is no state regulation, that's anarchy. In a free market there will always be some form of state intervention, from the fundamental legal framework that creates the concept of property and enforces contracts for its transfer, to standards of product quality and the legislation to ensure consumer protection, and to regulations that protect the environment, animal welfare, and employees. None of that state regulation makes the market any less free, the problems start when the state taxes the citizen to pay for regulations and then distributes that tax to the producers to cover their costs, because market forces don't now control the costs or the distribution. So I too agree that there needs to be regulation in order that society can impose its morality and values on a market which natively has none, but that doesn't make all regulation benign, and particularly not if it distorts market forces.

It's a very one sided freedom when regulation imposes costs on the producer but not on the purchaser. You yourself suggest that consumers should pay the cost of production - a regulation that does not cover the current market.

Regulation is paid for by the purchaser via higher purchase price to cover the cost of compliance.

Cost of production of a litre of milk (in UK) 28-32p. Cost in supermarket 25p.

Who's paying the difference?

Precisely.

Fine, so let the farmers go out of business, and if that affects supply then the price of milk will rise.

And if those figures are correct (and I don't trust tjat they are) but if they are correct then the farmer is making a loss, and more fool them.

That depeneds where you shop:

"However, some retailers - including Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury's and the Co-op - have schemes in place to ensure farmers are paid a price above the average cost of production for fresh milk.".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18951422

Do you have any idea what your talking about? Farmers are going out of business, do you know who has the highest suicide rates? Farmers. Why? So arseholes like you can buy cheap milk.

Reminds be of diesel car owners.

What's wrong with diesel? Quantify.

It's a while since I've put anyone on ignore, but I've had enough of your personal unpleasantness.

Some people just don't like the truth, hilarious he calls someone else unpleasant. But then he's the expert on unpleasantness.

Pollution: People tend to chose diesel because it is cheaper on fuel despite its toxic output.

What is "true" about Simon Kirby being a 'cheap-milk buying arseole'?

What toxins, precisely?

i will choose NOx and particulates over CO anyday, would rather sit in a garage with my diesel car over yours with your petrol anyday - as for free market and farming then it is only fair if all meat/dairy for sale in the uk (inc that used in ready meals/pre made cakes/yoghurt etc) has had the same welfare standards - currently ours are well above even the most recent EU standards

I can't be precise, but NOx.

So you advocate dairy farmers being bullied out of business by supermarket chains, just to give you a cheap cuppa?

THAT is unpleasant!

Perhaps by advocating farmers go out of business, more fool them?

The argument from JSC was that Simon is an arseole because he would rather farmers go out of business so he could have cheap milk. He didn't say that; that's a strawman fallacy.

That being said, I do not always agree with Simon's political philosophy either. I don't believe in total market forces. The country's average fat problem is an example of doing that.

I don't accept the premise that farmers are bullied. I believe that if a business can't find a buyer for its products at a price that turns a profit then that business is going to the wall, and businesses go to the wall every day, that doesn't particularly bother me because other businesses innovate and find a more successful model and succeed.

I don't know what you think my political philosophy is, but I don't believe in total market forces, if by that you mean market forces and nothing but market forces. As blackdog said, the market has no morality and ethics and its only motivation is profit, but I don't see that as a problem, it just need balancing with a degree of regulation.

Thats a truly distasteful view and not one that will find too much support.

You're going to have to explain why.

When your customer base is swept up by big multi nationals, then being bullied is inevitable. Especially when those big multinationals don't play fair.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/m...hdog-suppliers-

Every producer that sells stuff has to sell at a price that allows them to turn a profit, and if there isn't a market for their stuff at a good enough price then they either innovate, or fail. Every business.

I think the onus is on you to explain why you should say 'more fool them'.

Err, because it's wrong, on so many levels and not something I would expect anyone with the faintest inkling of either food production or of dealing with the multies to come up with and certainly not you. I expected better.

hmmm, vexatious comes to mind....

Yes I know that bit, that is a fact of life, but the market is rigged and biased towards the bullies and the seducers: Tesco et al. What you are stating is in progress which could result in food supply problems in the future, not to mention that the cheap imports are a result of animal welfare issues. As farms fail, livestock has to travel further and and animal welfare is challenged.