M579 – Honours for Politicians or Political Service Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
M579- Honours for Politicians or Political Service, Barnetlad MP

This House believes that the awarding of Honours to Politicians or for political service is a contributory factor to the low esteem in which politics and government is held.

This House therefore believes that the awarding of Honours to Politicians, political advisors and in general for political service should cease. Exceptions should be made and awards still be given for military service, for acts of bravery, and for appointments to the House of Lords
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
”for appointments to the Lords”
Please keep the odious dwarf Bercow as far away from the Lords as possible.

Him and Tommy Robinson fit like peas in a pod - anti-democratic, midget fascists with a chip on their shoulders about a large section of the voting public.
1
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
”for appointments to the Lords”
Please keep the odious dwarf Bercow as far away from the Lords as possible.

Him and Tommy Robinson fit like peas in a pod - anti-democratic, midget fascists with a chip on their shoulders about a large section of the voting public.
While I'm pleased the right honourable gentleman has acknowledged Tommy Robinson is a "fascist", as a person of Asian heritage I find his comparison to Bercow unsatisfactory to say the least.
2
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
I am apathetic towards this motion - honours are just a circle jerk for the establishment and I couldn’t give two ****s who does and doesn’t get them.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
”for appointments to the Lords”
Please keep the odious dwarf Bercow as far away from the Lords as possible.

Him and Tommy Robinson fit like peas in a pod - anti-democratic, midget fascists with a chip on their shoulders about a large section of the voting public.
As an exception to my post above, I agree with the honourable member that poison dwarf Bercow, being the anti-democratic bully and cretin that he is, must be kept as far away from a lordship as possible.

Thankfully, I can say that in my meeting with a minister and close ally of Boris this week (who shall remain unnamed as per Chatham House rules) that I remain confident that his peerage will NOT be approved by the government.
0
abucha3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
I could not support this motion, on the basis that I do believe some politicians do deserve honours because some have given an awful amount of commitment to public service and I think that should be recognised.

Unfortunately this means that it is abused. Is there a particular case that has driven this motion?

I am no fan of Nick Clegg, but I think his honour was appropriate. Probably an unpopular opinion, but he put party politics aside and compromised on a lot of his policies 10 years ago when the country was in an economic and political crisis, in order to ensure the country had a stable Government. He also held his party together for the full five year term when at many points they wanted to walk away.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Connor27)
I am apathetic towards this motion - honours are just a circle jerk for the establishment and I couldn’t give two ****s who does and doesn’t get them.
Hear, hear!
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
No, I don't agree that this a significant issue that affects trust in politicians.
2
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
I like the fact that the issue has been raised as the distribution of honours has been abused but I can't support as some politicans do deserve to receive a honour.
2
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
I can't back this motion. The honours system is plainly fine - Her Majesty the Queen appoints deserving honourees on behalf of the sitting government of the time, for a variety of reasons pertaining to their service. That extends to politicians we like as much as it does politicians we do not like. Those people can be considered as experts, and as such they should have a rightful place in the House of Lords. I'm no fan of Bullyboy Bercow, but when the dust settles and a proper inquiry into his conduct is held, if he comes out as innocent, I see no reason to withhold precedent.
1
r.uh
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
”for appointments to the Lords”
Please keep the odious dwarf Bercow as far away from the Lords as possible.

Him and Tommy Robinson fit like peas in a pod - anti-democratic, midget fascists with a chip on their shoulders about a large section of the voting public.
This is just ridiculous... could the right honorable member please withdraw his comment likening John Bercow to a fascist?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
Mr Speaker, i intend to abstain on this motion.

Although i do agree that the girth of honours (political or not) is excessive at the highest end of the honour spectrum (Sir should be reserved for people having done something special) i don't especially disagree with granting honours for service even if i would reduce the amount and alter the distribution.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
”for appointments to the Lords”
Please keep the odious dwarf Bercow as far away from the Lords as possible.

Him and Tommy Robinson fit like peas in a pod - anti-democratic, midget fascists with a chip on their shoulders about a large section of the voting public.
Okay, and the motion itself, which isn't targeted at any individual?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
I can't back this motion. The honours system is plainly fine - Her Majesty the Queen appoints deserving honourees on behalf of the sitting government of the time, for a variety of reasons pertaining to their service. That extends to politicians we like as much as it does politicians we do not like. Those people can be considered as experts, and as such they should have a rightful place in the House of Lords. I'm no fan of Bullyboy Bercow, but when the dust settles and a proper inquiry into his conduct is held, if he comes out as innocent, I see no reason to withhold precedent.
And do you appreciate that that variety of reasons include the desire to have more representatives from certain parties in the house of Lords in order to pass legislation?

This motion also isn't about John Bercow.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
I think it is completely acceptable to honouring people who have dedicated their lives to civil service. If anything it is the appointments to the House of Lords that are more contentious and more of a public confidence issue than the honours.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
If anything it is the appointments to the House of Lords that are more contentious and more of a public confidence issue than the honours.
I agree.
0
Possibly this
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
I really see little point in much of this. If we're talking about a lack of trust in government and politicians, the honours list doesn't even come into it, whilst I appreciate the sentiment of this proposal, I see it doing nothing to actually make changes to society's view of government. Also there are many politicians who have impacted our daily lives and, debatably, made them better, these people deserved to be honoured as much as everyone else on the honours list.
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by r.uh)
This is just ridiculous... could the right honorable member please withdraw his comment likening John Bercow to a fascist?
I refuse to withdraw my remarks, for the reason that opposing the democratic will of the people and putting your personal beliefs forward at the expense of impartiality are despicable, anti-democratic and lead to a slippery slope.

One might also add that Mosley, like Bercow, supported a single European state.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
I refuse to withdraw my remarks, for the reason that opposing the democratic will of the people and putting your personal beliefs forward at the expense of impartiality are despicable, anti-democratic and lead to a slippery slope.

One might also add that Mosley, like Bercow, supported a single European state.
While I've never heard Bercow actually express support for a federal Europe (a lot of remoaners still only advocate the status quo), it's probably worth saying that not all euro-skeptics 'want' to see the EU collapse. My objection personally (and I know several folk around d&CA who also share the view) is to the UK being part of what will become a federal state, rather than the objection of its eventual existence.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
My objection personally (and I know several folk around d&CA who also share the view) is to the UK being part of what will become a federal state, rather than the objection of its eventual existence.
I would be all for the EU if it was a free trade bloc. I strongly oppose the move towards federalisation and the inherent loss of sovereignty involved in that.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (197)
67.93%
No (93)
32.07%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed