Originally posted by Larkie It's always good to see someone who has the cojones to reject an MBE, OBE etc.
Without those MBEs, OBEs, CBEs [and whatnot] being handed out, there would be no opportunity for people to reject them, and, as you say, it's always good to see someone who has the cojones to do so.
Originally posted by FMF Without those MBEs, OBEs, CBEs [and whatnot] being handed out, there would be no opportunity for people to reject them, and, as you say, it's always good to see someone who has the cojones to do so.
I seem to remember David Cameron ,the then prime minister of the UK giving his hairdresser an honour ( no, not that ).
I think they ( honours ) should be banned ,all they do is slap the rich and famous on the back .
Originally posted by Ashiitaka Just let them have the sense to pass the crown straight to William. We'll never forgive Charles for killing Diana. Now she was a real princess.
I suspect sir you have been watching too many conspiracy theories on youtube.
Originally posted by Great Big Stees How about our (Canadian) Conrad Black, who gave up his Canadian citizenship in order to become a Lord. Oh, he's Canadian again because the other Lords found out he was a "scoundrel/robber of funds from his own companies" and they booted him out. But we Canadians, being the polite and forgiving folk we are, allowed him to get his citizenship back.
Originally posted by Ashiitaka The monarchy is the legal owner of the land, and they bring billions of pounds of money in from tourists. More so than they cost. ...
Land ownership implies that might makes right. I figure an enlightened society could move past that primitive concept. Keep the queen though. Kinda like in a museum. She can demonstrate social niceties as befits the landed gentry or whatever.
Originally posted by Larkie Too right Phil
It's always good to see someone who has the cojones to reject an MBE, OBE etc.
But not your average weaselly politician mind. Kinnock was opposed to the honours system from day one - but more than happy to accept a Life peerage: "I accepted the kind invitation to enter the House of Lords as a working peer for practical political reasons."
Yeah, right.
Weasel.
The second house - although weakened by Thatcher - still has a role in UK
politics. Without working peers from all parties it wouldn't work. It would have
been a nonsense for Kinnock to have rejected his peerage.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 The second house - although weakened by Thatcher - still has a role in UK
politics. Without working peers from all parties it wouldn't work. It would have
been a nonsense for Kinnock to have rejected his peerage.
You are right. It does have an important role.
My point is that Kinnock was very vocal, throughout his (record) years as leader of the opposition, in opposing the very existence of the House of Lords.
In 1976 he said: 'The House of Lords must go - not be reformed, not be replaced, not be reborn in some nominated life-after-death patronage paradise, just closed down, abolished, finished.'
Hypocrisy was my point.
Originally posted by Larkie In 1976 he said: 'The House of Lords must go - not be reformed, not be replaced, not be reborn in some nominated life-after-death patronage paradise, just closed down, abolished, finished.'
Hypocrisy was my point.
Is every instance of someone changing their mind an example of "hypocrisy" in your view?
Originally posted by FMF Is every instance of someone changing their mind an example of "hypocrisy" in your view?
No, of course not.
But in this instance, given his career-long objection to the existence of the Upper House, I cannot think of a better term to describe his acceptance of a peerage.
How would you describe it?
Originally posted by Larkie You are right. It does have an important role.
My point is that Kinnock was very vocal, throughout his (record) years as leader of the opposition, in opposing the very existence of the House of Lords.
In 1976 he said: 'The House of Lords must go - not be reformed, not be replaced, not be reborn in some nominated life-after-death patronage paradise, just closed down, abolished, finished.'
Hypocrisy was my point.
I do not see how belonging to something one objects to is hypocritical.
The only way the Lords can be abolished is through Parliament of which the Lords is a part.
In the same way that the UK should stay in the EU so that it can reform it.
bugger royalty
08 Jan '17 21:44
YouTube
Back to Top