Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more

So you think their figures are wrong then, yes? Any evidence to show they are?  If they were then people like you (pro EU) would be tearing them to shreds with facts, as that is not the case I see no reason to doubt their validity. 

 

It's that well worn VT tactic of attacking the messenger (in this case the website) when the message itself can't be challenged in order to try and discredit it, i.e. exactly what you have tried - and failed - to do above.

 

Must try harder

[drat01]

Try harder? Sorry you make no sense, and the smiley at the end makes no sense either.

 

In terms of the group you quote - what would you say their aim is exactly? - I will give you a clue - found on a quick search re them - "Open Europe works with the Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs researching ideas for EU reform".

 

Also your original post made reference to French farmers etc and subsidies etc. Now are you basing this comment on a) that the EU is wrong and we should not be part of it (when I say we I mean the UK not Oman obviously - smiley face :-) ), that all countries of the EU should have the same slice of the "pie" or should be a proportionate slice dependent on what criteria, c) that factors like size of sectors in relation to GDP etc should be considered, d) see a

 

I appreciate you have this long held obsession with the EU, and could be what in polite circles be described as being somewhat anti-EU, and many of the things that it does. So be it, but when you start to use such a biased organisation as the one you quoted as the fact and basis for your argument then expect people who do not share your views to take what they push out as being the true and objective set of facts- nah aint going to work, is it?

Edited August 4, 2013 by drat01

[tonyh29]

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more

Says the man who frequently uses left foot forward as a "credible" source

[peterms]

 

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more

Says the man who frequently uses left foot forward as a "credible" source

 

 

If LFF credits its sources, it stands and falls by them.  If it's an opinion piece, take it as such.

 

Any view which discounts something only because it comes from there is a bit shaky, don't you think?

[drat01]

 

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more

Says the man who frequently uses left foot forward as a "credible" source

 

 

Do I Tony? - I may have quoted very occasionally from there (care to remind me where I have?)

 

The point is a straightforward one really in respect to the point on the EU - quoting from an organisation that has by it's won admission and remit the aims which it does and it's links as shown, somewhat brings into question the validity and tone of its so called reports. You and others may well listen to every word they say, but at least do it in respect to context especially on the bits that they omit to consider when they issue any statements.

 

Anyway back to this Gvmt .......

 

It seems that the benefit reforms will be back in the news this week

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/04/childcare-voucher-stay-at-home-parent-exclude

 

I wonder what U turn will happen, or who will be wheeled out to defend things?

[Awol]

Try harder? Sorry you make no sense, and the smiley at the end makes no sense either.

 

In terms of the group you quote - what would you say their aim is exactly? - I will give you a clue - found on a quick search re them - "Open Europe works with the Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs researching ideas for EU reform".

 

Also your original post made reference to French farmers etc and subsidies etc. Now are you basing this comment on a) that the EU is wrong and we should not be part of it (when I say we I mean the UK not Oman obviously - smiley face :-) ), that all countries of the EU should have the same slice of the "pie" or should be a proportionate slice dependent on what criteria, c) that factors like size of sectors in relation to GDP etc should be considered, d) see a

 

I appreciate you have this long held obsession with the EU, and could be what in polite circles be described as being somewhat anti-EU, and many of the things that it does. So be it, but when you start to use such a biased organisation as the one you quoted as the fact and basis for your argument then expect people who do not share your views to take what they push out as being the true and objective set of facts- nah aint going to work, is it?

Drat, that is just a ridiculous and irrelevant load of old waffle. The thing that matters is whether the figures are accurate, not the source they came from. If the figures are correct then the point stands that UK farmers are not doing well out of the CAP. That is not contentious, or obsessive, or have anything to do with some bizarre reference to polite society. It is, as the old saying goes, a fact.  Attacking the website I took the figures from is simply a transparent and weak attempt at deflection on your part.

[Risso]

 

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

 

Looks like your comprehension is letting you down yet again: "None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths".

[peterms]

Actually, big UK landowners are doing very well out of the EU.  That's why the tories blocked attempts at reform (see the link I posted today).

 

Farmers, as in people who farm to produce edible goods, don't do as well as landowners.  The system is geared to the interests of the rich and powerful.  If this surprises you, you should stay in more, and read.

 

It is true the EU, or EDC, or EEC, was structured to meet the interests of French and German farmers.  But now it meets the needs of the richest people in Britain.

[peterms]

 

 

 

 

Well, the big landowners get a lot.  Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example.  Here.

 

 

Looks like your comprehension is letting you down yet again: "None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths".

 

 

Ahahahahahahahahaha!  That's a good one!  Well done!

 

You might quote the whole thing, at least.

 

It doesn't go to him, just to his wife and son!   Oh my god!  Are you really that naive!

 

 

A time for tough love, and no one has been better placed to dish it out than the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith. On Monday the Telegraph claimed that, as his contribution to the latest round of spending reductions, he was prepared to cut harder and deeper on the welfare bill. But one might have thought he'd have a better grasp of the need people will sometimes have for public assistance. And if in doubt, he can always ask the relatives. For over the years, the farm business operating off the country estate part-owned by Duncan Smith's son – with the minister's wife as a trustee – has received well over a million pounds in taxpayer subsidies. Swanbourne Home Farms, run in partnership between the  minister's in-laws, Baron and Baroness Cottesloe, brother-in-law Thomas, and cousin Richard Brooks, has been given €1,517,535 over a 10-year period in funding from the EU.

 

It has also been the recipient of grants understood to be worth tens of thousands of pounds from Natural England. Described by the EU as "income support" for farmers, these common agricultural policy payments were established by the 1957 treaty of Rome to ensure "fair standard of living for the agricultural community". None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths. "Neither Iain Duncan Smith or his wife receive any income whatsoever from the Swanbourne Estate," his spokesman says. And few would quibble with the payments themselves. Still, it shows that the best of us need a hand from time to time.

[Risso]

It's a direct quote from the Grauniad link you've posted:

 

Swanbourne Home Farms, run in partnership between the  minister's in-laws, Baron and Baroness Cottesloe, brother-in-law Thomas, and cousin Richard Brooks, has been given €1,517,535 over a 10-year period in funding from the EU. It has also been the recipient of grants understood to be worth tens of thousands of pounds from Natural England. Described by the EU as "income support" for farmers, these common agricultural policy payments were established by the 1957 treaty of Rome to ensure "fair standard of living for the agricultural community". None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths. "Neither Iain Duncan Smith or his wife receive any income whatsoever from the Swanbourne Estate," his spokesman says. And few would quibble with the payments themselves. Still, it shows that the best of us need a hand from time to time.

 

None of it goes to his wife and son, it would seem.  So no, not naive Peter, just possessed of the ability to read.

[tonyh29]

 

 

The day that organisations like the one you quote give an impartial and objective viewpoint is the day I take them seriously. You may want use a mouthpiece for the UK not being part of the EU as your justification, and so be it, but in terms of any sort of credibility, I think I would trust some of the ITK's on Twitter more

Says the man who frequently uses left foot forward as a "credible" source

 

 

 

 

The point is a straightforward one really in respect to the point on the EU - quoting from an organisation that has by it's won admission and remit the aims which it does and it's links as shown, somewhat brings into question the validity and tone of its so called reports. You and others may well listen to every word they say, but at least do it in respect to context especially on the bits that they omit to consider when they issue any statements.

 

 

 

I've never  been to their web site nor read anything they've published so that sort of pisses on your chips a wee bit

[drat01]

Tony did you find my posting of left foot forward articles at all? :-)

As for you not reading their articles, great i am genuinly pleased, at least you wont post any of their drivel as fact then.

P.s. when will my cattle be delivered :-)

Edited August 4, 2013 by drat01

[peterms]

It's a direct quote from the Grauniad link you've posted:

 

Swanbourne Home Farms, run in partnership between the  minister's in-laws, Baron and Baroness Cottesloe, brother-in-law Thomas, and cousin Richard Brooks, has been given €1,517,535 over a 10-year period in funding from the EU. It has also been the recipient of grants understood to be worth tens of thousands of pounds from Natural England. Described by the EU as "income support" for farmers, these common agricultural policy payments were established by the 1957 treaty of Rome to ensure "fair standard of living for the agricultural community". None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths. "Neither Iain Duncan Smith or his wife receive any income whatsoever from the Swanbourne Estate," his spokesman says. And few would quibble with the payments themselves. Still, it shows that the best of us need a hand from time to time.

 

None of it goes to his wife and son, it would seem.  So no, not naive Peter, just possessed of the ability to read.

 

And also possessed of the ability to understand accounts, I thought, and understand where the benefit ends up.

 

So is the Swanbourne Home Farm some sort of co-op to benefit Malawian goatherds, would you say, or a tax dodge for the Smith family?

[Risso]

It's a big farm, that gets money the owners don't need from the EU, like all other owners of big farms.  I don't agree with it, but I'd hardly call it a tax dodge.

[StefanAVFC]

This thread is brilliant to read after leaving it for a few days.

[peterms]

It's a big farm, that gets money the owners don't need from the EU, like all other owners of big farms.  I don't agree with it, but I'd hardly call it a tax dodge.

 

Mmmm.  Interesting answer.

 

Do you think the affairs of the Duncan Smith household and his relatives are arranged so as to maximise "tax efficiency", aka dodge their due payments and dump the liability on to the rest of us?

[Risso]

I've absolutely no idea about, or real interest in the Duncan Smith household.  You seem to have veered from EU subsidies to tax avoidance though.

[villaajax]

Yes Peter, it's a bit unfair to bring up tough questions a Tory can't answer

[peterms]

Yes Peter, it's a bit unfair to bring up tough questions a Tory can't answer

 

I can only apologise.  I can't think what came over me.

[thetrees]

This thread is brilliant to read after leaving it for a few days.

It's great isn't it? Plenty of "them and us", with intermittent cheerleading.

Some of my favourite posters are regular contributors to this thread.