Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
He won't get another chance to make that mistake again. Hopefully no one on that side will ever again.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Sadly though Roger, there are no guarantees that a Conservative will not be as stupid as Brown one day.... Remember Heath!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Fair point Barry.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
All senior politicians of every party have ever been the same. Say what's necessary to get to the top then do what's necessary to stay there. When, in our lifetime, did a prime minister ever deliver everything which had been promised? And who was the last failing minister to resign honourably without being forced? What is, and has always been missing from politics is integrity in those who seek high office.
It's often said that if a candidate for the US presidency has what it takes to get elected, he ought not to be trusted with that office. I agree.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
That is why we should always distrust government (used as a term that includes all levels of government. local and supra-national included) and limit their power and influence Peter. The less we trust governments to do and the less influence they have the better.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
EU subcidies meant for` honest`farmers is being paid out to elite greedy pigs.
Landowners are claiming a slice of £ 3.5 billion subsidy to UK.
EU`s agriculture commissioner to crack down and make payments only to honest farmers who farm their land.
NFU President says money shoul only go to active farmers that are producing on two acres or two thousand acres.
......might put in a claim............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg - the problem is in the subsidy system. Why should anyone who qualifies for such a subsidy not claim? These subsidies are often for countryside conservation anyway, or for support for particular farming methods and so go towards something useful and are not simply to line someone's pockets.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#506, examples please Reg.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I know a little about this so I will be able to give you an example or two hopefully. This particular topic was featured on Panorama the other night and no doubt will be repeated in the week. Several hugely wealthy names were mentioned on the programme, such as the Duke of Westminster who literally claims millions becuase the millions are there to be claimed. The programme was making the point that if the Duke of Westminster is as rich as cressus, then why does he need to be claiming subsidies on a grand scale. There was one super rich farmer..his name I dont have, I was idly watching and not making notes, but he was happy to take part in the programme. He said he was worth £50Million( or was that Billion) but was still claiming subsidy on a massive scale. The figures mentioned were eye-watering.
This is causing something of a shock-horror in rural communities I believe.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 507..........disagree.
# 508.........889 landowners receive more than £ 250,000 ........of those 135 receive more than £ 500,000..........
.........and 47 of those more than £ 1,000,000 Recipients of the subsidy include The Queen and Duke of Westminster.
Panorama BBC 1......5th March......now on BBC i player........
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
We posted at the same time Reg
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg- are you deliberately missing the point of Peter's question?
What were those farm subsidy payments for? They are given for reasons.
You are just saying they should not have been paid out to a particular farmer because the farmer happens to be rich. That is not good enough. These are not 'means tested benefits'. By all means put a case for farm subsidies being means tested and lets examine that argument properly but you do not argue a case, just make statements.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I wouldnt claim to be an expert on farm subsidies far from it. But the germ of the idea behind the programme and I have to admit i wasnt concentrating hugely, it had been a long day...is that subsidies are in essence paid to produce a certain food on smaller holdings, the programme was making the case that if you are hugely rich with massive holdings on industrial scale level, if I can put it that way, and making pots of gold daily, then why do you need to claim from the public purse when the nation is strapped for cash.
The idea i would think behind subsidies is to sponsor normal size or smaller holdings helping them to be productive and make a go of it etc.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am astonished that a super rich farmer would go on camera admitting making a claim for subsidy.
seems to go against the whole principle.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
My understanding and I do listen to Farming Today every Friday morning as I drive to breakfast, is that it is nothing to do with the size of the farm but to do with things like countryside conservation, the use of particular methods and to encourage producing particular produce. I do not pretend to be an expert on this but it certainly is nothing to do with how well off the farmer is or how big his farm is. Some CAP subsidies are specifically targeted at hill farmers though, I believe.
I do agree that the whole CAP has always been a farce though.
The whole point is that we need to have more facts and it is wrong to just jump in and moan without the actual facts, who and how much is just not enough.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I agree Barry that more facts need to be made known, but even though I'm a Conservative, I cannot see that paying very rich people even more money, makes sense and has no morality.
I'm not a socialist of any description, but would like to know more.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the way things are going roger i am half expecting you to break into a rendition of the "red flag", up in clarendon place you are known as "that labour bloke".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Look at it this way Roger.
The owner of a historical property charges for admission, they may be very rich, but do you resent paying for the services they provide you and towards the upkeep of the historical property?
Many of these CAP subsidies are for conservation of the countryside and wildlife - is that not a valuable service worth paying for? The wealth of the person providing that service is irrelevant.
Again - I am not defending CAP and I am not an expert in it, I say this to show that we do need to have more information on what exactly those CAP payments some are so quick to criticise are for.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Most owners of historical properties are not (cash) wealthy, they just own them.
If they are cash rich, they wouldn't open it to the public, so not a proper like for like question Barry.
I don't mind people thinking I'm that Labour bloke so long as they vote for me to continue as their councillor Howard.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The main reason they are not rich Roger are the demands the upkeep of those expensive properties.... We still come back to the question, specifically what are these specific CAP grants for? Reg has not answered that, yet, so I perhaps his complaint is more part of the general hatred of the rich he frequently expresses rather than anything else.
