11 Jan 17
Originally posted by wolfgang59Again I agree with you on principle
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.
However - since accepting the peerage around 12 years ago, what tangible efforts has he made to any sort of reform?
None, as far as I can tell.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by LarkieHow would I describe it? I would describe it as a change of mind about the opportunity that it presented to try to make his country a better place ~ something he dedicated his entire life to ~ and also, perhaps, more specifically, an opportunity to end up playing a proactive part in the reform of the upper house so that, one day, it is clearly no longer the kind of place that he criticized in the way he did in 1976 (as quoted by you).
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?
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by apathistDid you watch the video? If so you would know they voluntarily give the revenues from the land to the British people, (200 million pounds per year), while also attracting 7 billion pounds in tourists.
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.
They only cost 40 million pounds.
Therefore Britain is 7 000 160 000 pounds better off because of the monarchy.
Current population of the UK = roughly 65 million ( when I last checked ) therefore every person's taxes are 107 pounds less each year because of the monarchy.
11 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Reforming the EU is impossible as long as long as arch federalist lunatics such as Jean Claude Juncker, Guy Verhofstadt, Martin Schulz and Donald tusk are in charge, who will never ever compromise on their dream of a united states of Europe. They don't have to compromise or make rational decisions because they are not accountable to the general public through elections. As such they will never reform.
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.
11 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell, he's had 12 years to make a start.
How would I describe it? I would describe it as a change of mind about the opportunity that it presented to try to make his country a better place ~ something he dedicated his entire life to ~ and also, perhaps, more specifically, an opportunity to end up playing a proactive part in the reform of the upper house so that, one day, it is clearly no longer the kind of place that he criticized in the way he did in 1976 (as quoted by you).
So far, not going well in that respect. Are you going to argue with that?
The quotation is correct, by the way. Neil Kinnock's words, not mine, if that's what you're driving at.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by LarkieSo you reckon it's hypocrisy rather than a change of mind?
Well, he's had 12 years to make a start.
So far, not going well in that respect. Are you going to argue with that?
The quotation is correct, by the way. Neil Kinnock's words, not mine, if that's what you're driving at.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by FMFNot sure I understand the question.
So you reckon it's hypocrisy rather than a change of mind?
Time out, FMF.
Clearly you are a fan of Neil Kinnock and clearly - I'm not.
No amount of to-and-fro will get us to change our opinions on the man. This is politics, after all.
It would be interesting, though, to list all the great things that Kinnock and his family have achieved for the likes of you and I - as an opposition leader, Euro commissioner(s) and Peer(s).
A short list, indeed.
See you later.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by LarkieI'm not a fan of Neil Kinnock at all. I am interested in the way you chose to condemn him. I am interested in the word you used. "Hypocrisy".
Not sure I understand the question.
Time out, FMF.
Clearly you are a fan of Neil Kinnock and clearly - I'm not.
No amount of to-and-fro will get us to change our opinions on the man. This is politics, after all.
It would be interesting, though, to list all the great things that Kinnock and his family have achieved for the likes of you and I - as an opposition leader, Euro commissioner(s) and Peer(s).
A short list, indeed.
See you later.
He said in 1976 he disapproved of the upper house as it was then constituted. About 30 years later he took a place in the second house.
You said it was hypocrisy. I suggested that it was, instead, merely a change of mind.
Your response was non-committal... something about how little he had achieved which I thought was kind of beside the point.
So having traded perspectives, I asked once again: do you reckon it's hypocrisy rather than a change of mind?
I'm not a fan of Kinnock.
I wonder whether you called him a hypocrite because you're not a fan.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by FMFYes that quote was from 1976, however he continued to hold that opinion until he was offered the peerage, which he immediately accepted. You call it a change of mind. I call it hypocrisy, based on his actions alone and not my personal opinion.
I'm not a fan of Neil Kinnock at all. I am interested in the way you chose to condemn him. I am interested in the word you used. "Hypocrisy".
He said in 1976 he disapproved of the upper house as it was then constituted. About 30 years later he took a place in the second house.
You said it was hypocrisy. I suggested that it was, instead, merely a change of ...[text shortened]... fan of Kinnock.
I wonder whether you called him a hypocrite [b]because you're not a fan.[/b]
I hope that's clear for you.
11 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by LarkieBut wasn't the house of lords quite significantly reformed starting in 1997? And didn't Kinnock only start working there in 2005 after that reform had been made? Can a change of mind that occurred after his own party addressed some of the key problems with the house of lords, initiated reform, and then enacted it (I believe it was in 2003) really be simply characterized as "hypocrisy".? I am talking about his actions here, and not your apparent personal dislike of the man.
Yes that quote was from 1976, however he continued to hold that opinion until he was offered the peerage, which he immediately accepted. You call it a change of mind. I call it hypocrisy, based on his actions alone and not my personal opinion.
I hope that's clear for you.
11 Jan 17
Originally posted by FMFTo answer your questions
But wasn't the house of lords quite significantly reformed starting in 1997? And didn't Kinnock only start working there in 2005 after that reform had been made? Can a change of mind that occurred after his own party addressed some of the key problems with the house of lords, initiated reform, and then enacted it (I believe it was in 2003) really be simply chara ...[text shortened]... crisy".? I am talking about his actions here, and not your apparent personal dislike of the man.
a. No - House of Lords reforms proposed but nothing delivered since 1999. Reform bill is on hold, as you know;
b. therefore no, unless you are referring to the 1999 reforms of ridding the house of several hereditary peers. That was supposed to be the first stage of sweeping changes but precisely nothing else has been agreed upon since. But that was 6 years before he was offered a peerage; in 2003 nothing was agreed upon re. reforms by MP's and peers alike. Nothing was enacted in 2003. Where did you get that from??
c. His own party haven't addressed any 'key problems'.
For the sake of entertaining your taste for fastidious nit-picking and argument for argument's sake, FMF, we have gone way off piste and frankly I'm getting bored with this. I've made my point, that Neil Kinnock is a self-interested hypocrite for accepting membership of a body that he has despised for all his working life. End of.
Goodnight!
12 Jan 17
Originally posted by LarkieI don't see how querying your obviously animosity-driven use of the word "hypocrite" ~ and asking you if changes of mind can always be described as such ~ can simply be dismissed as "nit-picking". If to engage you on this matter is to be dismissed as "argument for argument's sake", do you concede that calling Neil Kinnock a hypocrite for his change of mind was "argument for argument's sake" too?
For the sake of entertaining your taste for fastidious nit-picking and argument for argument's sake, FMF, we have gone way off piste and frankly I'm getting bored with this. I've made my point, that Neil Kinnock is a self-interested hypocrite for accepting membership of a body that he has despised for all his working life.
12 Jan 17
@Larkie
I think you have failed to address 2 issues which are relevant to your accusation.
1. Proof that Kinnocks view of the Lords had not changed from the time of the statement you quoted up unto him accepting the peerage.
2. Even if you prove "1" then how does that make him a hypocrite?
Good afternoon.